Wikipedia:Peer review/Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States/archive1

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

 * Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because of on-going disputes that have hampered the page progressing into an interesting, (reasonably) non-partisan piece of work. Some editors appear to be driven by strong political views that hamper their ability to edit in a way that suits Wikipedia's guiding principles.

Currently I cannot believe it will ever achieve FA status - maybe not even GA status. It is already very long, yet there appears to be no drive or interest in reducing it either by cropping unnecessary text or moving information into articles on the subject in question. Indeed some users appear to want to add even more material.

What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses. The main questions would be what existing material is good and should be kept, what existing material is good and should be moved elsewhere (if so, what), and what existing material is bad and should be deleted/replaced. Furthermore what areas, if any, could be expanded on the page.

Essentially, explain where the page "is" now, where it needs to go and how it is going to get there.

Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses. I think most editors involved would be able to support this statement. However, there would likely be less concensus on the 'main questions' as John Smith has identified and phrased them.


 * A number of editors have expressed willingness to look at a complete re-structuring of the article, and if such a move seemed likely to support continued improvement of the article, concensus could likely be developed on that issue.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the harm in asking uninvolved editors to look at a complete restructure too? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are coming from with your question. I was in fact offering up the possibility of a complete restructuring in addition to your options of what existing material is good and should be kept, what existing material is good and should be moved elsewhere (if so, what), and what existing material is bad and should be deleted/replaced. Furthermore what areas, if any, could be expanded on the page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can also agree that the article could benefit from "What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses." I disagree that it can never be "even a GA." A far as ascribing "a lack of drive or interest" on the part of established editors to reduce any currently unessential material I do not think John is in a position to say, because his experience with the page is very recent, and he has not yet evidenced any specific knowledge of the topic which is broad and complex. The article is a work in progress and there are always a number of issues to work on; I trust that peer reviewers will keep that in mind. I also hope that peer reviewers will be disposed to ask questions if they require more knowledge or clarification pertaining to the subject.BernardL (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bernard, I can read the talk page - I have not seen many entries where people have said "wow, we need to cut this down, guys". You yourself have worked on yet another section to add to the article, which will make it even longer.
 * Rather than take swipes at me by alleging this peer request is to get at one of your friends and saying that I don't know anything about the topic (which would be irrelevant anyway given even someone with no knowledge can see that a page over 100kb could be broken down), you could assume good faith and not try to belittle those outsiders that have a view. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that Bernard has done anything of the sort, and I raised the same point about your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that you have made JohnSmiths. No one but yourself has raised the issue that the article is "too long." I suggest that given your history of conflict with me, to the point of getting a revert parole and going to arbcom--and the fact that part of that was your wikistalking--that you disenge from further conflict with me. Out of the 2,199,609 articles on WP, why did you choose the one that I primarily edit on, if not to further seek out conflict with me? Even if you are not, then that is clearly the appearance you create, and more reason reconsider your choices of articles to edit on (not that you have shown any previous interest or knowledge on this topic anyway). That being said, I welcome outside and non-involved editors input.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? I am the one who has been attacked and sniped at for making this peer review request. I think the treatment I have received at the hands of you and your buddy is a good reason why the article needs outside help because you are too suspicious and mean towards people who come along to express a view other than "keep up the good work". John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out...
That, in addition to believing it too long John Smith also feels that the page suffers from too great of a POV slant. Unfortunately, he has yet to make any specific suggestions or contributions besides asking that content be deleted. We have suggested that he begin a sandbox to show us the direction he envisions for the page, but as of yet we have seen no response.

Furthermore, i have a nice little script that strips citation, footnote, and reference formatting from articles. I ran it on the page content and discovered that, absent the massive footnoting and cited sources at the bottom of the page (and the accompanying formatting within the article), the page comes to only about ~64K (i actually measured 63K, but that was only a quick look).

64K is a common page length, and i must point out that this particular article suffers from a much higher level of challenge and scrutiny regarding its assertions. Consequently, the content length cannot be effectively estimated by merely glancing at the history or edit page and using the file length as a measure. This is apparently what John Smith has done, and i would suggest that if one truly wishes to reckon the content size then in articles such as this -- where there is, of necessity, just a huge, huge, huge number of footnotes, citations, and sourced referents -- that one must take into account these elements.

I would, therefore, suggest that for now the question of whether or not this page is too long is moot, and that this particular peer review request is nothing more than content dispute moved to this page. Since the editors of that page have yet to see any clear or focused suggestions or contributions made by John Smith, it is my opinion that this minor disagreement ,is more appropriate on the talk page.

Finally, i would like to observe that this particular objection seems as if it would be a relatively easy thing to abuse. Determinedly antagonistic editors would, without a doubt, attempt to fluff articles up with citations and sources (the work of which would fall to their opponents, thereby wasting their time) and then demand that content be trimmed upon its growth to some unspecified length. While that might seem an ineffective means of censoring content, it has been my experience that on wikipedia certain political issues are a magnet for all sorts of extremely determined extremists who seek to censor ideas not to their liking; when unable to utilize other means i have no doubt that such people would be willing to avail themselves of these methods, also. While it might not succeed in eliminating pre-existing content it would, nevertheless, be an extremely effective means of limiting further development of the article by enforcing an artificial cap on what may or may not be presented there. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's rather improper to suggest a request for a peer review is a continuation of a content dispute. A peer review can be both positive and negative in its conclusions, so it is useless unless one honestly wants an independent outside view. As to length, I sometimes see three citations per point. That is not necessary, especially if some are propaganda mouthpieces like Granma.
 * I honestly don't understand why certain editors feel this request is somehow "bad" for the page. Are editors so naive that they're going to be influenced by my brief observations and ignore what they see on the article? Clearly there are disputes, as you yourself have complained about the activities of other users. If the disputes have to be resolved via tough dispute resolution means you will need to be able to show it wasn't just your view against their's. A peer review is useful as it can both serve to act as a means of forming consensus and show that you are acting out of good faith.
 * Again, the repeated objections/complaints about this peer review request are bizzare in the extreme. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the request was "bad" for the page. I simply indicated that the points used to justify the request are spurious. That is a big distinction.

You are entitled to your opinions about the value of certain sources, but unless your opinion accords with established Wikipedia precedent then it really doesn't matter. Granma may seem merely a propaganda machine to you, but then many people around the world feel the same way about the U.S. State Department, the CIA, or even the New York Times and Washington Post. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy steers a more neutral path between those extremes.

Also, it seems odd for you to suggest that it is in Wikipedia's interest to eliminate the sourcing and citations for included material. Essentially, what you are suggesting is that the editors of this page willfully eliminate evidence demonstrating that the article is accurately sourced; clearly, that would open up the possibility for later editors to come along and delete the material because it is not properly sourced. That seems quite contrary to the fundamental principles upon which this project is based.Stone put to sky (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sky, please do not misrepresent what I said. I did not suggest eliminate sourcing, I suggesting removing sources that repeat what others said. You do not need three sources for one point. I have worked on lots of articles where multiple sources have been skimmed down. From a style point I think more than two sources does not look pleasant. I also did not say "you must delete them" - I said that they were not necessary. There is a big difference. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I asked why a controversial source like Granma would be used when there are other more reliable sources too. And, yes, I would say that it it a POV source whereas the New York Times is not. Wikipedians are allowed to use their common-sense, and Cuba is a land without media freedom whereas the US has a very good amount of it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)