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

RE: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Proposed Resolution
Morton/Travb Proposal: no weasel words; add a further tag (3/1)

Support
 * 1) Support Travb (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support abakharev 10:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that it mean to use Chomsky alleges that ... instead of Some analysis allege...  Allegation is not a weasel word, it mean that somebody alleges but other mat disagree abakharev 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AWW :) Travb (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support. --NYCJosh 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - I think this will result in necessary qualfications being removed. It may also be used as an argument to support changing the page title, and then the page, from cited allegations, to "facts" cited to allegations. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Could we have some examples of weasel words in the article as it is now? My concern is that this may be understood as suggesting allegations are to be presented as facts. Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AWW hope this helps, best wishes. Travb (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a suggestion that the page title be changed then? Tom Harrison Talk 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea ask User:Alex Bakharev, he The mediator initiated it, or if he didn't the mediator did. Alex B Gaveriti Pa-Ruski? (Do you speak Russian?) Privet Alex otkudavy?   Travb (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not initiated this, our moderator did. My own interest is that the article would not become a collection of bullshit presented as fact. Да, я говорю по русски. Все интересующиеся могут заглянуть в статью user:Alex Bakharev. abakharev 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * как много русский люди здесь! :-) Self-Described Seabhcán 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya Americanitz. O menya Russkoya Certza. ;-) Maya Janya Ukryenka. Ya Ochin skutchiyu Po-Odessye. Kakaya статью, Alex? Travb (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable allegations can be included, if presented as allegations
Tom harrison proposal: notable allegations can be included, if presented as allegations (3/2)

Tom, do you mean: "notable allegations can be included but ONLY if they are presented as allegations? If so, does that mean that if information is presented as FACT (not as an allegation) in a notable source then there is no need to present it as an allegation? (I would agree with the latter). I want to make sure we understant what we're voting on. --NYCJosh 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If an action is described with near-universal agreement as state terrorism in most independent reliable sources, then we can say it was terrorism. If not, we can only say, "Professor West says it was terrorism." Tom Harrison Talk 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support abakharev 10:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Although, as everything in the article is an allegation by definition, I'm not sure we need to label each comment as an allegation individually. But I think Tom means that we should word each statement as "Chomsky says ..." and this is fine by me. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I have in mind. Tom Harrison Talk 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Every claim made on any "criticism" or "allegation" type page must attribute each comment to the individual that has offered the criticism or allegation. It's non-negotiable.--Zleitzen 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. This is the only way the page can exist and stay within policy. Allegations by notable figures - attributed and presented as allegations - with exposition of the claims themselves, clearly sourced. This should apply to all articles in this area relating to all nations across the board - namely on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page. No forum has ever condemned a nation for engaging in state terrorism in such a fashion as to make it a given for us to write it as fact. Even the UN is not a neutral court here.--Zleitzen 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is the only way the page can exist and stay within policy." I hate truisms, because they often ignore other viable options. I have repeatedly suggested a name change to this article, which would no longer violate WP:AWW AND  stay within policy.  Please keep in mind that the current title violates  WP:AWW. User:Zleitzen, I generally agree with your other statments, thanks for your opinion on this matter. Travb (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Trav, "Allegations" isn't on WP:AWW - and can't be a word to avoid, it is a noun that performs an essential funtion. "Allegedly" is on the WP:AWW page but that is an adverb.   I think you may have misunderstood the context.--Zleitzen 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess "Allegations" is not the same as "Allegedly..."? The noun is not the same as the verb? Travb (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom mentioned below:
 * "There is a mechanism for requesting a page be renamed at WP:RM. I think we should use that mechanism rather than working it out in informal mediation among ourselves." so maybe part of this conversation is temporarily moot. Travb (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Trav, allegedly is a different word to allegations because it is an adverb not a noun, and thus its usage is in a totally different context. There isn't a chance of "allegations" appearing on the WP:AWW page because it is an important word that we need to use, and do use all the time. A noun cannot be a weasel word by it's very nature. --Zleitzen 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I either predicted your answer, or helped you write it. "A noun cannot be a weasel word by it's very nature" Please explain. I will ask those editors on WP:AWW whether this is correct. Travb (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Allegations is a weasel word. Instead, lets quote sources, as you suggested earlier Tom, "John Doe" said this, or "John Doe" said that. Travb (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree per Travb. I originally added to the article the sentence about the CIA bombing campaign in Bagdhad in the early 1990s, citing the NY Times with a link to a free archived version of the NYT article on commondreams.com (because the NYT does not make its articles available after a few days and if I don't include a link I am typically immediately accused of making up stuff). This was changed to something like "according to the NYT, former US intel. officials allege that...". Watered down enough? Tom H. changed this to something like "x [name of the NYT journalist] alleged that according to US intel officials..." That not only violated WP rules, it borders on whitewahing. It also approaches a parody of what a watered down article looks like when sacred cows are under attack. Since when is the individual journalist mentioned in a fully cited contribtuion? While I am griping about that piece, at another point, Tom H. complained about "all these commondreams.com" citations. Tom H. have you bothered to read the citation (with the words "NYT" in it, let alone clicking on the link I provided)?  I don't mean to pick on Tom. This kind of treatment is quite common for my contributions.  --NYCJosh 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "according to the NYT, former US intel. officials state that...". Would be fine.
 * "But Tom H. should know better." In Tom H. defense, maybe Tom is not familar with WP:AWW. I don't know all wikipedia policy myself. Travb (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How about stating the allegation: bombing campaign, and cite the NYT? Why should it be in that strange format?--NYCJosh 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple comprimise to satisfy all parties. On a less controversial page, you could list: the "bombing campaign" and simply cite the NYT. Here, it is better to reference the source, so it is clear what reputable source stated what. Travb (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is a mechanism for requesting a page be renamed at WP:RM. I think we should use that mechanism rather than working it out in informal mediation among ourselves. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, once again I am impressed with your ability to build consensus. Thank you for the really wonderful suggestion, I will look into WP:RM today.  If this is a problem with anyone, please don't hestiate to message me ASAP. Travb (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I lost you guys. Tom, who mentioned on this page renaming any article? Also, isn't the name of the article currently a point being discussed on the straw poll? Travb, what are you looking into moving? --NYCJosh 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply renaming the artile, see Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America. Looking forward to your opinion. Travb (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note: That the above poll is a policy question

Unprotect Page
Special Proposal: To Unprotect the main page (0/0)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) Let's take a bit more time to work toward agreement on some of these basics.--NYCJosh 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments