Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about United States and state terrorism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Questionable Reliable Sources

References from the first sentence

I challenge the citation "San Juan, Jr., E. (2007-04-28). Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity. Asian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on 2007-07-09." and assert that it is unreliable and that it is irrelevant even if reliable. Does anyone speak for it before it is deleted?

It states "the Permanent People’s Tribunal, an international opinion court independent from any State authority, rendered a judgment of guilty for “crimes against humanity”. The Permanent People’s Tribunal is not a court in any sense but is a group of lawyers and activists who formed a discussion club not too disimilar to the discussions held in many bars worldwide. My primary issue is that it pretends to be a court, not that it issues an opinion. The opinion of this discussion group however does not merit any attention in the WP article. Raggz (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems noteworthy. Is there a rule somewhere that any allegation pertinent to the article must be made by an actual court? Silly rabbit (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. If it is merely an unconfirmed allegation, it just need be described accurately. The question is there is even one reliable source that confirms that the US has been involved with state terrorism. A charge or a trial is the only way I can think of, can you offer another?

Fake courts pretending to be real courts are in my opinion not credible sources, do you agree? Raggz (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Source seems fine to me: this is an article not a trial. It is noteworthy as an organisation and seems impartial based on the fact that the common trait is being a lawyer, not any political allegiance. The source should stay. Pexise (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By analogy: If I convene the "People's Scientific Tribunal" in my local Tavern, and it offers a judicial finding, would we agree to include this in the Global Warming article? This is an article about a fake trial. Can you imagine HRW holding a fake trial? No, they and similar organizations are serious and are thus reliable sources. Raggz (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

On the board of directors of the AHRC:

Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer: Supreme Court Judge of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation and a well known human rights promoter, India.

Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati: Chief Justice of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation, India.

Professor Yash Ghai: Reputed Constitutional Expert and Spokesman on Human Rights, Hong Kong.

Mr. B. R. P. Bhasker: Reputed Journalist and a Trustee of Vigil India Movement, India.

Professor Byung-Sun Oh: Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, Korea

Mr. Kem Sokha: Member of National Assembly, Chairman, Commission on Human Rights and Complaints, Cambodia.

Professor Masanori Aikyo: Professor of Law at Nagoya University and Human Rights Advocate, Japan.

Mr. I. A. Rehman: Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan.

Sr. Mariani Dimaranan: Philippines Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, The Philippines.

Basil Fernando: Executive Director AHRC [[1]]

They also appear to be a fully constituted NGO and produce annual reports (350 pages) etc. If your group of pub scientists were of this caliber and if you were constituted as a NGO, and produced regular annual and financial reports - yes, I might agree that to be a credible source.... Pexise (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MR Webzine

This source is clearly an advocacy source that does not meet WP standards. It describes itself as "From the first, Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism and is still doing so today... In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism, and the commodification of life in the sixties, Monthly Review played a global role. A generation of activists received no small part of their education from the magazine and readers of Monthly Review Press books. In the intervening years of counter-revolution, Monthly Review has kept a steady viewpoint. That point of view is the heartfelt attempt to frame the issues of the day with one set of interests foremost in mind: those of the great majority of humankind, the propertyless." Does anyone speak for MR Webzine? Raggz (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the host of the cited material is largely irrelevant unless it happens to clearly be an illegal hate site, for example an anti-arab hate site or an anti-gay screed. What matters are the author's credentials. In this case the author's credentials are as follows: "E. San Juan, Jr. was recently Fulbright Professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, and visiting professor of literature and cultural studies at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, Republic of China. He directs the Philippines Cultural Studies Center in Connecticut and helps with the Philippine Forum in New York City. His most recent books are Racism and Cultural Studies (Duke University Press) and Working Through the Contradictions (Bucknell University Press). He is currently a research fellow at the Bellagio Italy Study Center of the Rockefeller Foundation." Do you have a problem with these credentials?

Secondly, you seem to object to Monthly Review as a source simply because it identifies itself with socialist values. MR Zine is just a spin-off of the Monthly Review institution which includes a journal and a publishing house that house that has produced very serious, respectable and influential scholarship. MRZine, to my knowledge is for the most part a repository featuring content generated largely outside its institution with only a few articles commissioned or at least as a result of the initiative of the site itself. It is much less of an advocacy group than sites such as Frontpage magazine, or specifically pro-Israeli advocacy sites such as Campus Watch, Camera, not to mention more clear-cut advocacy institutions such as The Heritage Foundation. I hope that you realize

that your argument for disqualification of MRZine necessarily implies disqualification of these sites as well, throughout Wikipedia, and their far more numerous references.BernardL (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. We will need more discussion on this topic.

You say "you seem to object to Monthly Review as a source simply because it identifies itself with socialist values". I can assure you that this has nothing to do with it. Do socialists have different values than others? I am curious about how they differ. My concern is that it clearly states that it is an advocacy site. It will review the Heritage Foundations site and see if they claim this or not. Raggz (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ROLAND G. SIMBULAN'S Essay, The real threat. I challenge this essay as a reliable source. Who does the fact checking required? Does anyone speak for this source? Raggz (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland G. Simbulan is Professor and Faculty Regent University of the Philippines. Do you dispute the facts therein? With what evidence?BernardL (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism. From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ)Cohn, Marjorie

This citation is outdated and makes allegations of state terrorism that have been reviewed and rejected by the International Criminal Court's prosecutor last year. The ICC investigation revealed that no proof exists for any of the crimes alleged four years ealier by this source. I accept this source to present serious research, but the ICC prosecutor's determination that the source is in serious error makes this citation dated and irrelevant. Does anyone speak for this citation? It could remain - if contrasted with the ICC determination that there is no evidence for war crimes or crimes against humanity by the UK. I propose deletion because this issue is settled authoratatively. Raggz (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The essay is a serious analysis covering pretty wide ground ranging across several issues; it certainly does not hinge upon the decision of a single trial, the reference for which you have not provided.BernardL (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look up the ICC citation, providing that you will accept the investigation of the ICC prosecutor last year as being more authoratative than speculation of more than four years back? Many academic papers speculate. Decisions by the ICC on a subject are more authoratative than academic speculation? Old citations become dated, and require deletion when this happens? Raggz (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Research Council: The UN and its conduct during the invasion and occupation of Iraq: Testimony to the World Tribunal on Iraq by Denis Halliday

This citation is an essay and is not (1) a news story gathered by reporters at the scene or (2) a reliable research source (because there are no citations for support). As an opinion essay, it is not a reliaable source for the article. Does anyone disagree? Raggz (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Global Research Council is reporting about a trial before the "World Tribunal on Iraq" which is a bar room court or debating society that met in Istanbul. It pretends that this was an actual court. Raggz (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky Interview on CBC". Hot Type. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-12-09.

Noam Chomsky is a respected writer, why are we using his radio interview and not one of his scholarly works that would support this point? The reader cannot access this source but could access his writings. Does anyone speak for retaining this source? Raggz (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but a more productive line might be to ask ourselves what is the article trying to say with these sources. I think probably most of them should go, but not necessarily because of unreliability; rather that I can't determine what purpose they serve to begin with. All of the aforementioned references are attached to the first sentence: "The United States has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by legal scholars, and human rights organizations, among others." Simply lumping together all of these references is deceptive. Who is a legal scholar here? A human rights organization? I think that they all should be removed, or perhaps incorporated at some other point in the article where they can be introduced appropriately. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am open to working in that direction. The whole point is to permit the reader to get the information accurately and easily, and they cannot now. There is a key word in the title "allegations", and unless we have proof for actual state terrorism and not just "allegations", we should be very careful to make it clear that none of these claims are proven. Raggz (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that the plethora of references was due primarily to the consensus process and the feeling that a multitude of references from various editors should be recognized. I am not averse to the notion of trimming them down somewhat.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More

Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor.

This source states "Venezuelan officials yesterday accused the US government of being "hypocritical" after a Texas judge blocked the extradition of terror suspect Luis Posada Carriles." The WP article is not about hypocrisy. Does anyone speak for defining hypocrisy as terrorism - or for keeping this citation? Raggz (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this should stay. Please see the statement in the article that this is supporting. Silly rabbit (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text "critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied.[3][4]". In the summary of the article we have the US being charged with hypocrisy. Why is this relevant in an article about state terrorism? If the U.S. government is proven to be hypocritical does this prove state terrorism? What is the link? I'm missing that part. Raggz (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the anti-terror public face of the US government policy is proven to be hypocritical, then that by definition implies that the US itself is guilty supporting terrorism. See hypocrisy: the act of condemning another person for an act of which the critic is guilty. Thus if the US were being hypocritical in its condemnation of terror, then that would mean that the US was itself guilt of supporting terrorism. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts there. The text itself is not about state terrorism. It is about the US having a public and a covert public policy. Is it state terrorisim to have a public and a covert public policy? If so, your point makes sense. I strongly disagree with your thesis that having governmental secrets in policy is at all unusual or that secret policies constitute terrorism. Without a link to the article topic, I don't see relevance, do you? Raggz (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is not "my thesis" at all. I sense that you are trying to set up a straw man to attack. Here is what the article says, following a brief description of some critics who assert that the U.S. is responsible for sponsoring terror:

Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism...

The sentence is obviously relevant to the subject of the article, even without the state secrets bit that you seem to have glommed on to. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is relevance. Obviously many critics have said many things. Not all need be in this article. What is the name of this article? How does hypocracy become terrorism?

Do ALL nations have a "public and a covert public policy"? Does this make all state terrorists? Is the US committing terrorism by keeping state secrets? The article suggests this. Raggz (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We now have tacit consensus for the deletion of the thesis that hypocracy by a nation is a form of state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we most certainly do not. Stone put to sky (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do have tacit consensus. You are free to shift this consensus by responding to the issue being discussed. You sentence above does not manage to do this because you articulate nothing of relevance. It is just your tactic to interfer with the process of developing a consensus, a Consensus violation. Feel free to instead shift consensus by responding to the question being discussed. If you do not do so: Tacit consensus will appear to have been reached in this section. Does anyone else have anything to add? Raggz (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your concern above. I do not see that I am obliged to respond to your satisfaction since you have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to swerve from your own interpretation of the passage. Consensus does not exist. Please go read a dictionary. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is not "my thesis" at all. I sense that you are trying to set up a straw man to attack. Here is what the article says, following a brief description of some critics who assert that the U.S. is responsible for sponsoring terror: Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism... The sentence is obviously relevant to the subject of the article, even without the state secrets bit that you seem to have glommed on to. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My question is what "straw man"?

State terrorism does not mention hypocrisy as terrorism. Is American hypocrisy terrorism, but not that of others? If not, why does this article uniquely define hypocrisy as terrorism?

If we accept that all nations practice hypocrisy, are all nations guilty of state terrorism? Would this charge apply only to those nations with an anti-terrorism policy? I really do not follow the logic.

What should I look up in a dictionary? Raggz (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism - defined

I suggest that we agree to use the definitions of state terrorism from that article? Are there definitions unique to the US that would not be there? Why have this covered twice, and differently? Raggz (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article deals with the idea of "State Terrorism" as it applies to the United States. As such, the definitions used by the U.S. government are necessary. I do, however, support linkage to that second page. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are using a unique definition (for example that of the FBI) of state terrorism, please share this? How is the definition here different than there? Raggz (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The differences are academic, although I'm ok with the main article on State Terrorism listing all definitions. But you should take it to that article, not this one. For this article, we should list all definitions, esp. those that have direct bearing on this subject matter, i.e. State Terrorism by the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we have consesus that we will limit ourselves to the definitions within state terrorism, unless we are clear to the Reader what other definitions we may use. Raggz (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment is incredibly disingenuous and quite frankly there is a pattern in that regard. No, there is not "consensus" for what you describe. You brought up a point, two editors disagreed with you and said the exact opposite thing (add me to the list so that makes three) and then you claimed "consensus" for your point of view. Do you seriously think folks will go along with that and not notice that you are blatantly misrepresenting others' comments? Please stop this kind of thing, it is tendentious editing at its worst.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My last comment was made in good-faith, and was based upon my understanding. I have serious traumatic brain damage, and may be missing something I might once have more quickly picked up. "Blatantly misrepresenting others' comments" will not accomplish anything for anyone, I'm just echoing what I understand so that I'm certain that I'm getting what is meant.

What did I miss? Why don't we have consensus to either use the definitions in state terrorism or clearly define variance for the Reader? Raggz (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Citations

Cuban American National Foundation

"In 1998 the Cuban government charged the Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding^[1] with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities^[2] Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF.^[3] "

The Cuban American National Foundation is claimed to have US funding, but the citation does not support this. It says that the Cuban American National Council gets US funding.

It was improper to revert the text without correcting this inaccuracy. If editors want to revise text, fine. Please do not revert known inaccuacies that are misleading and then suggest that the change was for readability. Raggz (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. I checked the source and it clearly says "Cuban American National Foundation." I quote: "CUBA DENOUNCES ON-GOING FINANCING OF ANTI-CUBAN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES BY MIAMI-BASED CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION''. So, I will restore this as its valid. Also, I will revert your inclusion of "for this reason...very different or even unique..." because that would be a classic SYN violation, since you are coming up with this conclusion yourself, devoid of any source that makes this conclusion. Just present the definitions (which by the way are NOT very different), and state there is no accepted consensus internationally yet (since these statements are supported by the sources). Currently the article already makes these points clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut and Pasted here from the disputed source: "Grant U215U040014, Cuban American National Council (Appendix A, Item 12) The purpose of this grant was to establish a resource center to provide public information, training and technical assistance to the Hispanic Community in Florida, New Jersey and Georgia. The grant began in October 2004 and the grant specialist indicated that the grantee has not yet produced any products. The search function was not able to find anything about the Cuban American National Foundation. Please post your text here. Raggz (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I did quote the text, above. And I used the citation that is provided supporting the claim. The source it gives for this claim is this:[2], Radio Havana. The The CANC is simply a split off from the CANF, and I'm sure both are funded. But, the citation that follows the claim does accurately support the claim. So what is the problem, if you found another source that says the CANC is supported, too?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Then there is consensus for the deletion of material relationg to the Cuban-American National Council. When there is a reliable source for your opinions, with consensus, we can insert these facts. Raggz (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Endowment for Democracy has funded the Cuban American National Foundation in the past. There are plenty of references available from a quick 2 minute Google search. Here is one reference: [3]. Here is another from CANF: [4]. It would be nice to find an inspector general report. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that citation #23 mentioned above should be removed. I have removed the citation, replacing it with a fact tag, since as Silly Rabbit indicates above, there is a reasonable prima facie case that reliable sources can be found for that particular claim. I will try to address it over the course of the weekend. I know of two for sure William Blum and Salim Lamrami. For the moment the sentence looks ugly because of the citation tag in the middle of it; but that's just temporary. BernardL (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

CANF

"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro.[39][40][41]"

Nothing in the paragraph above has any relevance to the topic of this article. Please move it to the correct article - or link the US to CANF with a reliable source. This cannot be an allegation, an allegation alone does not offer relevance. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BernardL and I have already responded to your objection above. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No rush. A single reliable source to support the text is fine. The source needs to link US funding to state terrorism. The present lack of this was a problem, and it will be good to have this citation. If the link is to an NGO that gets US funding, it would require particularly careful wording to work well. If WP accuses a US NGO of being a terrorist entity, there is great WP liability if the source is not strong enough. Raggz (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Cuban American National Foundation, based in Miami, is a lobbying and advocacy organization founded in 1981 that disseminates information about economic, political, and social issues in Cuba and in the U.S. Cuban community. One of its major objectives is to pressure Washington to take a hard line toward the Castro government. The foundation's longtime chairman, Jorge Mas Canosa, was described by the Miami Herald as the "most powerful Cuban exile in America," and before his death Mas-watchers asserted that he wanted to replace Castro as the country's head of state should the Cuban leader be overthrown. Mas was a close friend of Felix Rodriguez, a former CIA operative who coordinated air shipments from El Salvador for Oliver North's illegal contra supply network. In fact, North's diaries refer to Mas as a pass-through for money to the contras. The foundation received more than $600,000 in NED grants in the 1984-91 period, which it used to create and finance anti-Castro human rights organizations whose materials are designed to generate international sentiments against the Cuban government. Today, CANF no longer takes the view of the anti-Castro hardliners but believes that political transition in Cuba will be led not by expatriates but by the Cuban people." [[5]]

note: Tom Barry, is senior policy analyst at The International Relations Center. He has authored or co-authored more than twenty books on Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, food aid, the United Nations, free trade and U.S. foreign policy. These include The Great Divide: Challenge of U.S.-Mexico Relations in the 1990s (Grove Press), Feeding the Crisis: U.S. Food Aid and Farm Policy in Central America (University of Nebraska), The Next Fifty Years: The United Nations and the United States, and the award-winning Zapata’s Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crisis in Mexico (South End Press). He has also edited volumes on foreign policy such as Global Focus: U.S. Foreign policy at the Turn of the Millennium (St. Martin’s Press). BernardL (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Asia Times Online

Bhadrakumar, M. K. (2007-02-24). "Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains". Asia Times Online. This citation does not make any mention of terrorism or state terrorism, and so requires deletion. Raggz (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep reading. It does make that accusation, several times. I know because I've been over this before.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A little while ago I challenged that source for the same reason. However, when I re-read the source I discovered I was incorrect; it does accuse the United States of terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi IceColdBear. Welcome back. Yes, I remember that conversation. You only made this mistake once, but Raggz has been making it for almost every article, every source. That is too much. Please, Raggz, just take the time to read the source carefully, instead of looking for an opportunity to call for its removal. You seem to be driven by a strong desire to simply get rid of all sources for this article, and keep grasping at straws. If this keeps up, editors may start to think that you're just being disruptive here and not editing in good faith (this article has a history of such antics). I have not reached that conclusion yet, and will continue to extend you good faith, however, if you can please be more careful and take more time to read and think before you write, it would reflect much better on you. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What does the citation say about terrorism? Every quote is below:

"The Iranian outburst was, conceivably, prompted by the spurt of trans-border terrorism inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province, which borders Pakistan."
"Tehran, too, will probably face an existential dilemma as to whether or not such acts of terrorism are taking place with the knowledge of Musharraf and, more importantly, whether or not Musharraf is capable of doing anything about the situation.
"Iran is fast joining ranks with India and Afghanistan as a victim of trans-border violence perpetrated by irredentist elements crossing over from Pakistan. Tehran, too, will probably face an existential dilemma as to whether or not such acts of terrorism are taking place with the knowledge of Musharraf and, more importantly, whether or not Musharraf is capable of doing anything about the situation."
"Iran, perhaps, is somewhat better placed than India or Afghanistan to resolve this dilemma, since it is the US (and not Pakistan) that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism. And what could Musharraf do about US activities on Pakistani soil even if he wanted to? The Iranians seem to have sized up Musharraf's predicament."

This is an editorial (or opinion) paragraph. It is not a statement of fact. The Asia Times Online declares that it is a "voice" AND a news organization. Here is and example of it mixing the two. As usual, when dirt and water get mixed, WP editors end up with only mud to work with, but we can with more work, seperate fact from opinion. The citation needs to be deleted UNLESS the article cites the OPINION of the Asia Times Online. Raggz (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we comply with Synthesis, ONLY the "irredentist elements" are accused of terrorism. Where is the US acussed? Raggz (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here:

The Iranian outburst was, conceivably, prompted by the spurt of trans-border terrorism inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province.

The subsequent discussion is about how the U.S. military is organizing and financing it. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NY Times

Car bomb in Iran destroys a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards The New York Times The NY Times did not accuse the US of state terrorism. It said: "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,” a common reference to the United States and Britain." While the NY Times believes that the claim was directed at the United States, it also named an Iranian group fighting for national liberation as the suspected terrorists. Does anyone have another source for this claim? If not, this source needs to go. Raggz (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article goes on to describes that Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the United States and Britain of provoking and supporting the terrorist actions, opposition groups, ethnic conflict, etc. These allegations are supported by the Asian Times source, above, which makes these same claims, several times, accusing the US of the same, and in particular, "trans border terrorism."Giovanni33 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Raggz is correct. The article says, "Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the United States and Britain of provoking ethnic unrest in Iran and of supporting opposition groups." To call those actions terrorism is synthesis. The source should be removed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the NY times does not accuse the US of terrorism, but it does report on the facts that support the articles claim that Iran accuses the US of stirring up sectarian violence inside Iran, and it can be used to support that claim. Its in that context that the other source claims this is US sponsored terrorism. Since we are not making up any new claims not supported by sources within the article, there is no SYN going on here.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This one is iffy. Obviously it does not have a source which directly accuses the US of terrorism. However the paragraph preceding the footnote is already adequately sourced by the Asia Times article. Thus the New York Times article could be viewed as providing additional background information and an implicit denunciation of "US terrorism" in Iran. Thus the passage "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by 'insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,'" is particularly relevant. No direct accusation of US state terrorism so the article could not stand on its own as a source, but given that there is already a source for the terrorism accusation by Iran (and the strong implication in Shahriari's statement that the US was, as Iran say it, committing terrorism via these car bombers) I don't see much of a problem with keeping it, and I don't see a WP:SYNTH violation. It might be extraneous though and would certainly not be the end of the world if it was removed. Basically I'm on the fence leaning toward keeping it but also not caring so much.

Incidentally, I would be shocked if Ahmadinejad had not directly accused the use of terrorism at some point. If we could find some direct quotes from him for this section that would be quite useful (and undeniably relevant).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just proved why using that citation is OR. Therefore it must be removed. Jtrainor (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't see how including an additional footnote is OR when the basic point has already been established with another footnote. There's a case to be made for removal but I don't think it lies in OR, and I don't think it's a big deal either way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace just explained in a better way the same thing I was saying above, which is that its not SYN or OR. Rather its giving additional information about the claims being made in the article, with the terrorism charge supported by the primary source. This one gives additional background information and supports the other statement in the article, i.e. ethnic strife being instigated by the US (which the other article articulates as terrorism). So, there is nothing wrong with this (but I agree alone it could not stand).Giovanni33 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times did not accuse the US of state terrorism. It said: "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,” a common reference to the United States and Britain."

1. The article may say he attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism”.

2. It may alternatively say the NY Times believes that the attack had been carried out by elements that Iran claims were aided by the US. Raggz (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Brinkley, Joel (2004 June 9). "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks".

Brinkley, Joel (2004 June 9). "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks". New York Times.

This article does not discuss state terrorism. Is there a reason for retention? Raggz (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC

Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

This citation does not allegae that Cuba has accused the US of state terrorism. Unless some link is shown between Possada and the US, it is an irrelevant citation, and its use presently violates Synthesis. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the bombing of the airliner was an act of terrorism. It also states that Cuba condemns the U.S. for not extraditing the man considered guilty for it. Both statements are repeated elsewhere in the context of accusations of "state terrorism". It's not syn. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the applicable policy: Synthesis. The bombing WAS terrorism. No argument, but it is irrelevant to our article. If we want a section about US immigration policy as terrorism, I am fine with that. You just explained why this article cannot be used, so do we have consensus for removal? Raggz (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. 218 did not "just explain why this article cannot be used" and it is highly disingenuous to claim that that is what the user was saying. I don't know why you are bringing up US immigration policy since that does not seem to be the issue here. And again (because I explained this to you before) don't link to Synthesis (which goes nowhere) instead link to Synthesis (which goes to the relevant policy). You need to master wikilinking if you are going to keep linking to policies. I'm happy to help if you have questions about this but if you edit this section you'll see the difference between how you linked and how I linked.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From a broader perspective my editing objective is to ensure that the Reader knows what state terrorism means in regard to every allegation discussed.

Cuba has made allegations that the US harbors terrorists.
This allegation is about US immigration and extradition policy and nothing else, as state terrorism.

I am fine with including allegations of US immigration and extradition policy - as long as the Reader understands what is being alleged by Cuba. HOW we make this clear, we may properly debate at length. I am very concerned that we edit in a manner so that the Reader understands what is being alleged.

The article violates Synthesis (in my opinion) because there is no reliable source linking the alleged terrorists to the US. The only charges made in these citations against the US, are immigration/extradition policy issues. Cuba accuses individuals of bombings, but does not accuse the US of bombings. Raggz (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Earlier this year, they called Mr Posada Carriles "the primary suspect" of "the most horrific act of terrorism ever experienced by the countries" of the Caribbean." This article is not about Posada Carriles. This citation cannot be used to support an allegation of state terrorism by the United States. It may support a claim against Posada. Synthesis Raggz (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Four New Sources (Whups!)

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

A) This source clearly outlines and quotes reports by major U.S. government reports and media detailing covert acts of aggression and/or terror in Iran:

I suggest paraphrased inclusion of this quotation:

By May of 2003, ABC News reported, the Pentagon was "advocating a massive covert action program to overthrow Iran's ruling ayatollahs", a proposal "which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government", the MEK,

This statement is supported (and quoted) by this source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

Scott Ritter is a notable commentator on the issues in question. From that particular article i suggest including this quotation:

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

....But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

....CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units ... are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran....

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

B) The same source above, but used as validation of assertions that the CANC and CANF are linked by close ties; that CANF in particular has been a haven for terrorists, as well as an excellent quotation regarding Orlando Bosch (from the NYT):

The Justice Department called Mr. Bosch 'a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims' The first Bush administration overruled the deportation in 1990; Mr. Bosch remained in Florida." Bosch still lives in Miami.

And in that vein, there are also these other two sources of corroborating evidence on CANF:

An article from Granma detailing the close political and money ties between the U.S. government and CANF:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm

This article goes into great detail about the activities of Jorge Mas Canosa. In particular, there is an explicit quotation of him bragging about how he organized covert operations against Cuba while working as a propagandist under E. Howard Hunt in the CIA.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm

I think all of these sources offer a lot of material to buttress and bolster the content that is already on the page. Opinions? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These are reliable sources and this information would improve the content on the page.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Four New Useless Sources

This statement is supported (and quoted) by this source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm.

Not true. The word terrorism does not even appear. There is NO consensus for adding this. Raggz (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

Not useful,merely an advocacy site opinion piece - unless attributed to the author AND if notability is established. No consensus for inclusion.Raggz (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the citations in the article are from the mainstream press. Your objection does not hold. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An article from Granma detailing the close political and money ties between the U.S. government and CANF: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm

Self-published, so useless. No consensus for inclusion. Raggz (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that? It's a special for Granma international, originally published on ZNet: [6]. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take you at your word. Raggz (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to take me at my word. Just click the link to Z magazine provided. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I have read it. Granma alleges "Military courts in Venezuela acquitted them, not a surprising development since the CIA in 1967 had transferred Posada to Venezuela, using him as a leader of terrorist activities against Cuba in Latin America and the Caribbean." Nothing else there relates to state terrorism. This is subject to the "extraordinary claims" policy of WP:REDFLAG because Granma is a state-owned propaganda outlet that also provides news. To deny this challenge one need only find an echo within the "mainstream media". Absent such an echo, not a reliable source per WP:REDFLAG. Raggz (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, as other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you (and you've simply ignored them) is that your constant invocation of a certain aspect of WP:REDFLAG to argue that any "extraordinary claim" (as you defines it!) must be immediately removed unless it is seconded it the "mainstream media" is not what the policy says. I am assuming you have a misunderstanding of our policies on verifiability, but at some point we do expect you to review this policy ans properly understand it, and until then, take the many editors words for it (as we have been here a long time), and cease this line of reasoning.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm

Self-published, so useless. No consensus for inclusion.

Originally published in The Progressive 1993. Doesn't sound self-published to me. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take you at your word. Raggz (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a collection of impossible sounding claims, so I again challenge this as a reliable source because of the WP:REDFLAG "extraordinary claims" policy. What I think is irrelevant, all you need is a mainstrean media echo to deny my challenge.

The only allegation involving terrorism is: "After Bosch was released in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department ordered his deportation, citing reports from the CIA and FBI about the enormity of his terrorism." There is no US link, and a reliable source (1) proving terrorism and (2) some firm US link makes this citation useless for a US article. Raggz (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the art's and both are like Stone says both are supporting the CANF quotes Raggz is complaining about and all quotes from big name pubs so I say they are o.k. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm It does not mention terrorism. If it does not mention terrorism, why use it? Please quote the relevant text? Raggz (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html "Further, Cuba "said terrorism cannot be defined as including acts by legitimate national liberation movements" while asserting that "acts by states to destabilize other states is a form of terrorism." It is mostly about state terrorism by Cuba. This article is not about state terrorism by Cuba. The only use of this article would be to state "Counterpunch.org believes that the US has engaged in state terrorism against Cuba." Do we want a section on Cuban terrorism? I don't, but NPOV requires that we get into tghis if we use much of this material.

Read http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm In this article, the government of Cuba discusses various grievences, but does not mention state terrorism.

Read http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm The only place "terrorism" is mentioned is: "After Bosch was released in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department ordered his deportation, citing reports from the CIA and FBI about the enormity of his terrorism." As is typically the case, this text is irrelevant without any reliable source that links Bosch to the US government. Raggz (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

An anon-IP user moved the disputed tags to the "opposing views" section without giving a valid reason. I would take this to be vandalism given the criticism of the article is throughout, rather than just that one section. John Smith's (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not vandalism, that was an a good edit that was discussed on this talk page. Please revert yourself unless you can support with several specific issues in the article so we can fix them and get rid of those tags.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor should have explained the changes, however I moved them back as I can see they were combined by someone else. I kept the NPOV one as that was where it originally lived and should not have been moved to the bottom. I also added the cite-check per the comments from Raggz. John Smith's (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor did explain the change. Look at the edit summaries -- "See Talk". 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The change in question here did not have an edit summary, nor did the user make a comment on the talk page. If someone wishes to refer to a previous conversation they need to refer to it. John Smith's (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me and I know I typed something in there so I don't know what the problem is. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor to ensure a change is explained. If you explain any changes on the talk page then you can't go wrong. John Smith's (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you follow the talk Raggz objections have yet to bear out any actual citation issues upon investigation.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33, have you actually read the contested citation? If not, please read it before offering an opinion. Do you assert that (1) the text references the Cuban American Foundation and (2) that the citation mentions this organization? The citation does not mention the Cuban American Foundation, so why is it included? Raggz (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The place that Raggz seems to have a legitimate stake is the article's conflating the CANF with a similarly named organization in the source material. (I have not investigated to see if the article shows how the two organizations might be related) However what CAF has to do with the repositioning of tags - I cannot for the life of me understand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Red has it about right.

We cannot claim that the Cuban-American National Council (funded by the US State Department) is an alleged state terrorist entity only because it has a similar name to the Cuban-American National Foundation.
We cannot claim that the Cuban-American National Foundation (not funded by the US State Department) is an alleged state terrorist entity funded by the US, only because we have a cite where a different organization has a similar name (the Cuban-American National Council) and does have US funding.

I don't know what the tags are, so cannot reply on that. Raggz (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

How many here consider Raggz' recent objections to the article to be bad-faith attempts to delete material?

He doesn't even seem to have a basic grasp of the policies he's referring to. When a challenge is rejected, he simply grabs at another WP policy to try and find one that will stick. This seems like "wikilawyering" to me. Does anyone else here agree? 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This question is absurd. I suggest that nobody answer it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that question absurd? It's the behavior that appears absurd to me and it's already been implied in the comments of three other posters here and I'm just asking for comments openly not going out to e-mail. What's wrong with that? 218.160.176.184 (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a formally filed RFC and we don't do RFC's on users within articles. If you want, 218, you can file a formal user request for comment on Raggz' editorial practices, though it might be a bit premature for that. I have found Raggz' editing to be tendentious and have already said so but article talk is not the appropriate place to discuss user behavior in any kind of detail. Let's try to continue to keep it civil and if problems persist then folks can choose to move on to the more advanced stages of dispute resolution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That IP is Stone put to sky. Jtrainor (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Statement to the United Nations 2001 since the Cuban revolution

Read http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/L3028.doc.htm "In Miami, safe shelter was offered to those who funded, planned and carried out terrorist acts with absolute impunity, tolerated by the United States Government." Again Cuba alleges that US immigtation and extradition policy is a form of state terrorism. This citation has no other allegations against the US. I am fine with revising this article to make this allegation, but presently immigration policy as terrorism is not a topic. This article does not address any form of state terrorism in that article or this, so requires deletion. Raggz (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Errhhhhhhh....are you suggesting that Cuba's allegations against the U.S. are somehow less remarkable than the U.S.'s allegations against Cuba? Just wondering. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This charge has nothing to do with the US immigration policy. It has to do with the US harboring terrorists and allowing, and sometimes funding, their terrorist plots, without criminal prosecution. Are you implying that US immigration policy toward Cuba singles out terrorist cells for welcome as part of policy, or that all Cuban immigrants are terrorists? Because either premise is false, and is the only way you can implicate US immigration policy itself as a form of terrorism (even though this would still be Synthesis since no source says this.)Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

THAT would be interesting and MOST relevant, a reliable source that the US funds terrorists. Do you have this?

There are numerous reliable sources that Cuba is harboring terrorists wanted by the US, and funding international terrorism. I have not included these because they are somewhat irrelevant to this topic. Are you suggesting that US courts have jurisdiction to enforce Venezulean law?

"This charge has nothing to do with the US immigration policy." The article has several references where Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism because the US immigration and extradition policies permits them to live in the US.

"Errhhhhhhh....are you suggesting that Cuba's allegations against the U.S. are somehow less remarkable than the U.S.'s allegations against Cuba? Just wondering. It is obvious that this is true. Cuba is the plantiff in a large lawsuit against the US, which denies Cuba any degree of objectivity. It makes charges through its state-owned media that are (1) absurd and (2) not echoed by any member of the "mainstream media". Read WP:REDFLAG. The first condition is subjective but the second is not. All that is required to deny this challenge is a mainstream media echo of Cuba's absurd claims. Raggz (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of connection between Cuban allegations and the US

I expect to delete the folowing citation since it only makes allegations against CANF, and none against the US.

^ Investigator from Cuba takes stand in spy trial Miami Herald

There seems no point to discussing it unless there is ALSO some link between the US and CANF? Such a link is needed, and the absense creates a SYN error. Raggz (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation Request by RedPenofDoom

user: RedPenofDoom posted a fact tag in the following sentence:

"The Cuban revolution resulted in a large US Cuban refugee community, some of whom have conducted sustained long-term insurgency campaigns against Cuba.[27] and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades. Initially these efforts are known to have been directly supported by the United States government.[citation needed]"

Earlier today I came across the following when I was reading....(does it satisfy the need for a citation?)

"JMWAVE operated from Building 25 at the University of Miami's South Campus, a former U.S. Navy installation. Ted Shackley, a rising CIA star, was in charge as station chief from early 1962 through mid-1965. Some three or four hundred agents toiled under Shackley's leadership, making JMWAVE the largest CIA station in the world after the headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Additional CIA officers worked the Cuba account at Langley and elsewhere. With its estimated budget of $50 million a year (in 1960's dollars) the Miami station's economic impact on South Florida was tremendous." (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,p.130)

"A declassified CIA document dated April 23, 1963, shows eight exile organizations were receiving money, and only two- the Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) and the Movement for Revolutionary Recovery (MRR) - were engaged in paramilitary activity against Cuba. The biggest recipient was the Cuban Revolutionary Council, formed by the CIA as a front group for the Bay of Pigs invasion. It broke with the agency in April 1963."(Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books, p.135)

"Among the more widely known Miami exile groups of the day, in addition to the DRE and the MRR, were Alpha 66, the Second National Front of Escambray, Commandos L, the Insurrectional Revolutionary Recovery Movement (MIRR), the Thirtieth of November Movement, and the Peoples Revolutionary Movement (MRP), which later joined with other groups to become the Cuban Revolutionary Junta (JURE). The JURE, headed by Manuel Ray, and the MRR, headed by Manuel Artime, were both supported by the U.S. government in post-missile crisis period but operated as so-called autonomous groups." (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,135)

"Those Cuban exiles recruited and trained by the CIA as part of infiltration and commando teams or as support personnel for JMWAVE operations were much more discreet. Typical is the experience of Carlos Obregon, today the Miami representative for a Venezuelan publishing firm...The CIA had asked the DRE leadership to select some fifteen members for training in clandestine warfare, and Obregon was among those selected...They were taken to a motel near Homestead, just south of Miami on the fringe of the Florida Everglades, to begin their training...The course was cut short after two weeks, with the CIA complaining that the local press had been nosing around. The trainees were temporarily relocated to the Miami Beach area. A short time later they were taken to a site near North Key Largo at the top of the Florida Keys where training resumed in what was then a much less populated area...On some days during the latter stages of the Key Largo exercise, the group was split into smaller units and taken for a full day's training at a site in the Everglades...There they received instructions in the operation and use of various types of pistols, submachine guns, and C3 and C4 explosives...Finishing the course in the second quarter of 1962, Obregon was assigned to a team and flown to what he later learned was "The Farm," the CIA's super-secret training facility near Williamsburg, Virginia...Then it was back to Miami for maritime training, including learning to operate small boats, rubber rafts, and electronic navigational equipment; and the uses of infrared light and the metascope in infiltration and exfiltration operations. Classroom training was at a "safe house" near the main entrance to Everglades National Park." etc. (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,137-138)

(Don Bohning is the former Latin American editor of The Miami Herald.)BernardL (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase for inclusion needs to be "state terrorism". Of course not every citation needs to have this phrase, but when they do not, one need ask what point do that make that relates to "state terrorism".

There is a presumption often expressed here that military operations against Cuba, sabotage by Cuban refugees living within the US, US covert operations against Cuba, economic sanctions, strategic planning against Cuba, and many other similar actions are state terrorism. Few of these presumptive claims are supported by reliable sources, and the text above is an excellent example. If used to claim state terrorism this would be a policy violation Synthesis. To be applicable to this article, it would need to involve references relating to state terrorism, which it does not have. Raggz (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz is not using a standard he is just talking about what he thinks not wikipedia guidelines. The source is goode and does what it needs to. The source is about the statement before it and that is a supporting statement from Cuba, that Granma article says state terrorism and this is OK. Raggz is wrong. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The material above was submitted specifically to address the historical background claim being made to the effect that some Cuban exiles received government support and were trained in the Everglades. As to the notion that "few presumptive claims" of U.S. state terrorism are supported by reliable sources - well, they are in fact abundant in this article. Raggz is in denial. BernardL (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The source would seem to satisfy my concern about the statement: "these efforts are known to have been directly supported by the United States government."TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in denial, I'm trying to focus our attention upon what our sources actually say. I even added one that supports the CIA covert war claim. There was a covert war against Cuba, what is lacking is the broad Cold War context, Cubas invasions of their neighbors, their plan to invade the US (Puerto Rico) and annex US territory, the very real threat of thermonuclear attack from Cuba, etc. Was the entire Cold War state terrorism by the US? If so, then yes, Cuba was as well. If the Cold War was not, then the Cuban material should be in the Cold War article.

Back to our focus: What is the last date where the US was directly involved with a covert war against Cuba? This is a key date because we canot use material later (like a 1976 plane bombing) in this article without a US link.

Our article asserts state terrorism in the opening of the Cuban section. Read the first two, they are entirely allegations that Cuban terrorists living in the US are not being extradited to Cuba or Nicuragua for trial, an issue tried and resolved in federal court. What we have here is an allegation (indirectly) that the US Federal Court that refused to extradite Posada committed an act of state terrorism. I reject the claim that this decision was an act of state terrorism. Who wants to debate that it was?

Let us look at the third source. It too alleges that the US Federal Court committed state terrorism by rfusing to extradite Posda and others. It goes further: "The first witness on this subject was Antonia Panteleón, a colonel in State Security, who gave a long statement about the forms of terrorism utilized by the CIA, among them the organization of counterrevolutionary groups and bands from 1959 to 1961. She explained that those organizations—and even their leadership—were infiltrated by Cuban agents, and they were later disbanded at the time of the mercenary invasion." This source suggests (indirectly by analysis) that the ONLY US state terrorism issue after 1961 was the failure of the US Federal Court to extradite Posada and others. (Consider as well that this source is a statement by the plantiff in an 18 billion dollar law suit and is not echoed by a mainstream media source.)

I am fine with a potential consensus that the Cuban section sources support two allegations (and no others). If there are sources for others, fine, but I have not seen these.

That the CIA had a covert war against Cuba (in the Cold War context) that ended at some undefined point in the early 1960's.
That Cuba alleges that the actions and inactions of the US Federal Courts and law enforcement agencies were act of state terrorism in regard to US Extradition/immigration policy. Raggz (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New Reference for state-sponsored terrorism by US against Cuba from peer-reviewed journal

Earlier, I had submitted a quotation from Harvard professor Jorge I. Dominquez describing U.S. actions in Cuba as state-sponsored terrorism. What follows is an excerpt written by Louis A. Perez, professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, from an article entitled "Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro" which appeared in the The Journal of Latin American Studies.

"Covert action played an important role in support of US objectives, principally by laying siege to the Cuban economy and thereby making the island all the more susceptible to economic sanctions. For more than a decade, the United States engaged in acts that today would be understood as state-sponsored terrorism, including scores of assassination attempts at Fidel Castro, the infiltration of sabotage teams, and the disruption of Cuban agricultural and industrial production capacities. The CIA was specifically enjoined to stress economic sabotage." (Perez, Louis A. Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro: Sources of U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, The Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 54, May 2002) (Perez goes into considerable more detail concerning the methods,targets and impacts of the terrorist activities.)BernardL (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that US actions against Cuba in that era might be considered state terrorism if they happened today. Any use of force today by any nation is regarded as state terrorism by someone. Cuba even alleges that US immigration policy today is state terrorism.

I like the careful use of language, "engaged in acts that today would be understood as state-sponsored terrorism". Many of my objections would be met if we simply were as careful with language as is Jorge I. Dominquez. He does not allege that the US ever engaged in actual terrorism, but that it engaged in acts that TODAY would lead to such an accusation. The good part about his work is that he makes it clear what he means. Raggz (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. The excerpt above was not written by Jorge I Dominquez, it was written by Louis A. Perez, as my lead-in clearly indicated. BernardL (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I like the language, "would be understood today". This statement is true of the entire Cold War, for which Cuba was arguably the primary battle. (The nuking of Japan would be a war crime today, but that law did not then exist.) I am challenging all of the Cuban material on the WP:SYN policy ground. Clearly this article belongs with the Cuban material IF there is to be any Cuban material. This source does not provide the missing source to link anything in Cuba to state terrorism, he does not allege state terrorism. I like the language. Raggz (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism

"According to Ricardo Alarcón, President of Cuba’s national assembly "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century and he cited US immigration and extradition policies as a current form of state terrorism.”

How should we describe Ricardo Alarcón's allegations? He clearly is discussing US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism. How may we include his quote and properly put it into context? Raggz (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your posting of this new section as an answer of "no" to the question I asked a few sections above (twice if not three times, see "Operation Northwoods") about holding off on new topics until a number of existing issues are resolved. I don't know what you are quoting here. This is a generally problem with your posts Raggz. I assume this is from a news article, please provide a link to that news article here so we can evaluate the statement in its original context.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This quote is from the cite supporting the opening Cuban sentence. The first or second reference, first I believe. This was raised because this is one of the three sources that link the US to state terrorism in Cuba. The inadequacies of these are why there is a WP:SYN policy challenge.

I propose editing the definition of terrorism to include the Cuban version. For Cuba, terrorism includes the refusal of the US Federal Court to extradite Posada to Venezuela. Since we have the sources already in, why not add the Cuban definition? Raggz (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

comment Raggz, can you PLEASE start limiting your comments to just a few sections until concensus has been reached on those topics. Continually leaving the middle of a discussion to start another section and then in the middle of that discussion dropping back to re-ignite 3 or 4 discussions that had dried up when you jumped to creating new topics is not productive way for the group to reach consensus on any item. Please LIMIT your comments to one or two items until consensus has been reached on those points.

With regard to your specific request in this thread to 'include the cuban definition', please clearly post what exactly you would like the section to read. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am listening and will TRY. One or two might be too few. Raggz (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of content

Does it make sense to re-order the content starting with the section on Asia, because Asia comes first alphabetically and the events in Japan are first historically as well. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a sensible idea. As far as I know the only reason that the articles are in their current order is due to their chronological order of creation. I am not efficient at re-ordering, but,(according to me) you should feel free to do so. BernardL (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I support your idea to reorganize. WP:BOLD Raggz (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that contentious editing has moved to multiple parts of the article including the section in question, I am going to wait until the editing settles down so that it will be easier to follow the history of edits and reverts. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Northwoods

"A secret plan, Operation Northwoods, was approved by the the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted for action to Robert McNamara[33] then Secretary of Defense, and subsequently president of the World Bank. This plan included acts of violence on US soil or against US interests, such as plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities; blowing up a U.S. ship, and contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plan was rejected by the administration prior to John F. Kennedy's assassination but after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.[34][35]"

Nothing in the text above relates to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It belongs in another article. Discussion and the REJECTION of state terrorism almost 50 years ago is irrelevant to our article. I propose deletion of this material. Raggz (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to take this one on? Tag me and I'm "it"!! 218.160.176.184 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably could be phrased differently, but I think this is relevant information for this article. Not that anyone has time to discuss it now since there are so many other threads. Raggz, I ask you again, please stop bringing up new sections for discussion. PLEASE. It is making it impossible to have a real discussion. There are literally over 50 subsections which have been created in the last few days and only a few editors working on this. Please show me (and everyone else) some good faith and let discussion on the 40-odd threads you've opened proceed and achieve some consensus instead of adding 2-5 new threads every day or so. It is not a good way to work on things and the more you continue that practice the less willing (I think) you will find editors will be to work with you. Please reply on this point, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am committed to Consensus, and believe that a reasonable amount of time is an absolute requirement for this policy. I once agreed to a three day informal period, but everyone who requested it ignored it and edited without even discussion. You are editing in good-faith and deserve respect and and good-faith effort in return. I suggest reducing your editorial load to a more manageable level. There is no need however, to feel rushed.

Each discussion topic needs its own section. When and if discussion on Operation Northwoods reaches consensus or tacit consensus, we then may edit the Operation Northwoods material. If we do not have a section to discuss Operation Northwoods, we can never know when tacit consensus has been attained.

Here is a specific question: What state terrorism is alleged with Operation Northwoods? There seems to be none. Apparently there was a plan that included elements of state terrorism and this plan was then evaluated and was denied. Why is a fifty year old plan that was never accepted as policy relevant to this topic? Raggz (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in order to discuss Operation Northwoods we need a section on it, obviously. But there was no need to bring it up while we were discussing 40 other things--it could wait. Again, I ask you to please stop bringing up new topics while we are still discussing dozens of others, okay? It's a simple request, and I see no reason why you can not agree to it since other problems you might have can easily be discussed in a week or two. Suggesting reducing my editorial load has nothing to do with it and quite frankly that came off as a bit patronizing. The discussion is far too confusing and difficult to follow as it is--I'm asking that you not exacerbate that further by adding more sections. Will you agree to this for the time being? Please answer with a yes or a no.

I think the Operation Northwoods section is relevant because it represents (assuming it's true) planned state terrorism by the US that was ultimately not pursued. It doesn't fit perfectly within the title of the article, but so long as we present it correctly (stressing immediately that it was apparently not implemented, assuming this was true) I do not see a problem and think it is quite relevant to the topic of the article. If most people feel it does not belong I would not have much of a problem removing it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will compromise on this. Instead of removal, may we will write the section to inform the Reader that:

Nothing actually happened forty years ago, that it was a plan.
that no one alleges state terrorism ever ocurred.
that no one alleged state terrorism at that time.
that the Church Commission changed US policy to prevent similar plans 20 years ago

Do we have consensus on these points? Raggz (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know yet without seeing the specifics, so draft up a revision and put it in this section of talk so we can hash it out. Will you agree to not add any new sections while we work on this and other existing issues? I would appreciate an answer to this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am willing to listen in on what Raggz might have to offer, I do not understand how his point number three above ("no one alleged state terrorism at the time") could have any substance. At the time, much of the incriminating information concerning what is now commonly referred to as "the Secret War" against Cuba was classified. Moreover, "terrorism" as a term in popular discourse was not nearly as widely used at the time. Largely thanks to this secrecy as well as official projections of a benign US role in the world, people at the time had a pretty naive understanding of US foreign operations. Experience, including that of Vietnam, Indonesia, and numerous examples in Latin America has changed perceptions and resulted in a greater predisposition towards critical assessment of the US role, both within and outside the US, and within and outside scholarship.BernardL (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We agree that Cuba was then central within the Cold War and that unless the Cold War was state terrorism, the Cuban Cold War issues were not either?

You make an excellent point about covert US policy. I propose a short section on the Church Commission which was the watershed event that forever changed US covert action. Raggz (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first statement, assuming I understand it. If "the Cold War" (a rather amorphous topic) was not state terrorism (and clearly in a general sense it was not--part of the Cold War was diplomats having meetings which is not terrorism) this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the US has been accused of committing state terrorism in Cuba. I don't see a need for a section on the Church Commission and don't even know why you are proposing it exactly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuba was one of the central battles of the Cold War. We are discussing allegations that the US Cold War strategy for Cuba was actually state terrorism. There was nothing unique about the covert war with Cuba, it was all about the Cold War and the USSR, this was going on worldwide. There was a Covert World War (or Cold War). Cuba invaded three neighbors in 1959 and was expected to invade the US (Puerto Rico) at any point. The Cold War in Turkey caused the USSR to base nukes in Cuba. People in the US were digging bombshelters in their backyards because (in part) of Cuba. Our Cuban material is mostly about the Cold War. Why were a half million angry Cuban refugees in Miami? The Cold War. They had a revolution and instead got a Cold War Stalinist regieme. No one fled Cuba initially, they only fled when the Cold War intruded, when freedom of the press and all civil liberties were lost. They then hated Castro and the US feared him, a natural alliance. This is the context missing from our Cuban material. How can you not see the relevance? We make it sound like the US decided one day, hey, let's run a covert war against Cuba. This denies NPOV bigtime and you know it is not accurate ...

Sure, there was a lot more to the Cold War than covert battles and covert wars, but these were going on worldwide, exactly like with Cuba. Insurgents were funded, trained, and equipped. If it was state terrorism in Cuba then it was state terrorism worldwide. We should tell the whole story. Raggz (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cold War ended and the US decided to overhaul covert operations law, state terrorism law. The Church Commission was this tipping point when US law regarding state terrorism fundamentally changed. This is very important. Raggz (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sean O'Brien

Sean O'Brien's research supports the theory that state terrorism is more characteristic for authoritarian regiems and less characteristic for the US. Does anyone suggest that using his study of Cuba vs US issues would be a problem?

Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages. Sean P. O'Brien. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 320-335. Raggz (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the Cuba section this makes no sense, but I checked out the article itself and it's obviously fine as a source in general, and probably applies well to this article. Per the article abstract, the author's (somebody at UW-Milwaukee circa 1996) overall argument is that "the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes are more likely than the U.S. and other democracies to resort to international terrorism as a foreign policy tool." The data is from Time-series analysis (certainly not my bailiwick) so I don't know what went into the research and probably would not understand it if I did. The argument advanced is legitimate and relevant but it belongs in an early section of the article, which is worth discussing. Thanks to Raggz for what seems like a useful source! But please quit making new sections! The discussion here is beyond unmanageable and a number of folks are frustrated with your editing style on this page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a variant of Democratic Peace Theory, and I think it would be more suitable for the main State Terrorism article, or the article on Democratic Peace Theory, or related articles than this one. But since it specifically mentions state terrorism it may find some mention in this article, although I'm not sure. I think part of this line of thought is already in the "Opposition Section" if I'm not mistaken. The problem with it in this article, is that its a little off subject. Bigtimepeace summarized the theory correctly, but I don't see how allegations of specific actions committed by the US is logically answered by pointing to the increased likely-hood, per this theory, that another state does it more, etc. Its a type of logical fallacy. I suppose that an argument can be made that its (state terror) an inherent aspect of all States, but that there is a correlation between domestic civil conditions, and foreign policy--although I think the argument is flawed, and opposing arguments should be presented. However, this just goes to show this is not the article for presenting these issues, and they are discussed on other articles dealing with the debates.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

jtrainer didn't get edit passed

Didn't you all agree that the editing you all do should go on this page first? I reverted him because he didn't do it so I thought it was against wikipedia rules. Also his excuse was the part he didn't like was wrong but it was a good quote and it was important so I thought it should stay. It also says terrorism in it and thats important for the article. Does anyone agree or not? 218.160.177.247 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not discuss edits with editors who will not log on, but I will make an exception to say that your text above is unclear. Raggz (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While it is not required - on contentious articles such as this with active interest in editing, it is generally considered good form to work out potentially divisive material on the talk page first, before submitting in the actual article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to post everything I do with an article on the talk page, and in this instance, I did. I'm undoing your revert of me. Jtrainor (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall further note that that is that IP's first edit. Whoever it is should log in. Jtrainor (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for your edit, which blanks a valid and accurate source with information that is very relevant to the topic and section. Please explain this. Raggz comment about legality and not morality makes no sense. No where in removed text does it talk about legality or morality. Its simply the view of one historian who commented on the charges that that bombing was an instance of State Terror. Given that the historian is the section needs balance, his thoughts could use some elaboration and expansion, not deletion. Please explain. Also I agree that its very bad form to make contested edits on this article without explaining and obtaining consensus on the talk page first. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I invest the time to really get a large WWII and state terrorism section developed to deal with the lack of context and NPOV issues that Japan raises, do we really want to debate an action that was fully legal only because of moral concerns that we will never resolve? There already is an article on this. If the international community has a legal tribunal and determines legality, can it still be called state terrorism? Every article needs to define limits, where should these be here? Raggz (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with serious allegations of particular acts of State Terrorism by the US from reliable sources. If you have additional sources about that, please present that so we can look at the material and talk about its inclusion. You didn't explain my question about the deletion of sourced material, above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"do we really want to debate" - we, as editors of wikipedia, should not be debating whether "the action was legal or not". Such debate would generally be Original Research and not permitted in Wikipedia. What we should be debating is whether or not the statements within the article are WP:V verifiable (ie do we have a source that says this) and whether or not those statements are being presented in WP:NPOV a neutral point of view. (The statements themselves do NOT need to be NPOV if it they are verifiable and properly attributed to their source.) If we can re-focus the discussion on this page to be asking and answering those questions, we may be able to move forward on reaching concensus on the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and have made this very point myself. Legality, war crimes, morality, etc. are all different issues that this article is not about, per se, even though it is related. If there is to be a connection established connecting these areas to claims of State Terrorism, then we need to verify that from a reliable source that makes that connection in subject matters. We editors do not do that ourselves as that would be OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

comment to jraianor and raggz there is no requirement to start an account to edit or converse in wikipedia. creating an account can help to keep conversations and discussions straight, but as this talk page has proved, it in no way ensures that conversations are not convoluted or misunderstood. Annonymous editor, you are invited to create an account, but it is your choice. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

addendum to anonymous editor while anonymous eiditing is allowed, it is even more important for anonymous editors to follow WP:CIVIL. Your edit comment in your reversion of Jtrainor's comment [7], is bordering on uncivil and is unnecessarily confrontational. Please limit edit comments to explaining 'what' happened in the edit and not add additional sarcastic commentary.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just addresed the question of morality above. Now I will here. I'm persuadable to expand the scope of the article into Moral Authority. The initial issue is the lack of any reliable source to support a claim that legal acts are ever state terrorism by any form of moral authorities. This would open a fascinating new section on Islam and moral authority. Do we want to grow in this direction? Raggz (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Pen is correct. I apologize to our new participant for not properly greeting you. Are you a new user? Welcome. Raggz (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will the next person to revert the Hiroshima text using moral authority for support please first edit moral authority into the definitions section first, please? Raggz (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you are fetishizing law again. What you seem to be suggesting is that rule of law, and in this case international law, closes the case on legitimate scholarly and public discussion. Well, legal apparatuses and decisions are imperfect because they are the product of human conduct that is itself embedded in social power relations. Historically, laws and legal decisions have often been flawed and discriminatory, and real human progress in law has often come about as the result of social struggle in opposition to those invoking the authority of law. Independent scholars too, reserve the right to question the authority of the law including international law. Here is an interesting quote from the book "War and State Terrorism" by Mark Selden (Yale) and Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong) which might help you understand that there is no closure of debate and legitimate questioning just because an international tribunal has made a ruling...

"Herein lies the central problem of the international law regime. With a few notable exceptions, such as early restraints on airpower and on chemical and biological weapons, powerful nations have scarcely been restrained by legal norms from deploying new technologies in the service of national power. The international system has yet to seriously address, let alone overcome, problems associated with the impunity of the great powers. The record of the long twentieth century leaves little reason for optimism that an international legal order that is itself the product of agreement among the powers can enforce the laws of war confronted by challenges from great, and particularly hegemonic, powers. Yet the legal order, in contributing to consciousness of state terror, legitimizes efforts to control it. In this sense, it is intimately related to the social movements that have repeatedly challenged its workings." (Selden, Mark and So, Alvin Y. War and State Terrorism, War and Peace Library,16)BernardL (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to be suggesting is that rule of law, and in this case international law, closes the case on legitimate scholarly and public discussion. No. Obviously not. It does close the legal aspect though. Legal authority needs to follow moral authority. When it does not, it is not justice. Yes, great powers do have impunity, and this impairs social progress. We are in total agreement.

We can get into moral authority and state terrorism, which of course leads directly to religion and state terrorism, because religious leaders often bear great moral authority. May an Imam declare a legal state action to be state terrorism? May the Pope declare a nation that has legal abortions to be engaged in state terrorism? Obviosly yes, and in the case of Islam, the UN Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution condeming freedom of speech against Islam. We are indeed entering a new era, where Western notions of what is or is not state terrorism may be. The question here is not if we COULD get involved with MORAL AUTHORITY to determine when a legal state action is actually state terrorism - the question is if we want to? I suspect that we would need to rely on a very few sources, and that we are discussing a book and not an encyclopedia article. Raggz (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you let the available sources on the issue (claims of state terrorism committed by the US) guide content and discussion, since we are delimited by those proper constraints for building this encyclopedic article. Otherwise, this talk page turns into an open-ended discussion not serving its intended purpose. As I've stated several times, simply provide a reliable source and quotes its content, and then suggest how to add its information to the article. If there is some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others on the basis of a moral or particular religious basis--and calls it State Terrorism---then it may be suitable to mention that. This is of course provided its a reliable source, and we review what the source says, and have consensus about how to represent it in the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered you above. Concerning "... some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others..." we also need to address claims of legal non-violent state terrorism, such as those made by Cuba, that the denial by a US Federal Court of an extradition request by Venezuala was an act of terrorism.

From Christian terrorism: "such as the Lord's Resistance Army, consist of thousands of armed insurgents aiming to bring about a Christian state through violent revolution." There is also Islamic state terrorism.

Why do I raise this? To suggest that what we put into our DEFINITIONS section defines what we should add to the article. If we are not going to discuss abortion as state terrorism, we can set this limit within DEFINITIONS. If we don't want to deal with immigration/extradition policy as state terrorism, this should go into definitions - with links. I'm not arguing for or against topic inclusion here. I'm proposing that we agree to use DEFINITIONS as a guide to what should or should not be used.

I'm afraid I disagree with you, here. The reason is that this smacks of Original Research. This appears to be the case because you have yet to provide one source that supports any of your claims, i.e. Cuba saying that US immigration policy is state terrorism (they never said that, and I still have not seen a single source make that claim)-- or even a source that links the Christian Terrorists with the United States Government. What is the source and what does it say to the point? How is it State Terrorism? What does Islamic State Terrorism have to do with the US government? Is there any reliable source that talks about these things, or are you just making all this up, i.e. OR? Please, if you are going to make any claims about adding in new content to the article, please, have a source that supports it. Otherwise, its a waste of space to talk about it here. This is not a talk/blog forum.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have agreed to cover Hiroshima (above) I would prefer to limit the scope to actions illegal by international law. This would exclude Hiroshima. Hiroshima could be linked to for immorality as state terrorism articles. If we want to outline legal immorality as state terrorism, fine. This will be a serious challenge, but I'm willing to try. Raggz (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you did that then the 9-11 attacks would not qualify as "terrorism" for the simple reason that they are handled under local criminal law, not international law. The 9-11 attacks do not qualify under 'international law' for the simple reason that they were undertaken by individuals acting as criminals and not a state acting against another state. So to hold this page to that same standard is obviously disingenuous. Moreover, "terrorism" itself is not an idea that is limited to International law. The idea is much larger than that, and in fact its usage predates any attempts by the United States to impose a legal definition. The idea goes back to "terror tactics", which is an idea and phrase that goes back at least to the late part of the 18th century. So really, what you personally are suggesting in this instance flies in the face of all established usage, scholarship and understanding. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should consider a 9-11 section where we outline the allegations that the US Government bombed the World Trade Center. We could recruit editors with expertise in this. IF there had been a legal decision that had answered the question, I would say NO, it is settled, no laws were broken. There has been no court decision that "they were undertaken by individuals acting as criminals and not a state acting against another state", so YES, we should add this. Once again we are thinking alike. I didn't really understand your whole concept, but if you could restate it, I will try again. Raggz (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"you have yet to provide one source that supports any of your claims, i.e. Cuba saying that US immigration policy is state terrorism (they never said that..." Fair enough. Citations 19&20.

^*Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

^*Rodríguez, Javier. The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón. Granma. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

Read these carefully. The allege that US extradition/immigration policy is state terrorism. People they believe to be terrorist (who probably are) are permitted to reside in the US (immigration policy). Posada (who almost certainly is a retired terrorist) was not extradited by a federal judge concerned about the risk of torture. This Alarcon calls state terrorism (US federal courts committing state terrorism by denying extradition).

Christian terrorists? No, there is no US government link. Worldwide? Many. Raggz (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read these and I do not see the part that makes the accusation. Can you quote the relevant part? What I'm looking for is something that says "US Immigration Policy is State Terrorism," since that is your claim. About the Christian Terrorists, since you say there is no link to the US government then I think that proves its not relevant to this article, yes?Giovanni33 (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Raggz editing style is too confusing and requires considerable work by other editors to keep up with. May i suggest editing and discussing ONE section at a time. Then after Raggz is happy with it, only then starting a new section. This would speed the process up and avoid wasting so much time better spent on other articles. Wayne (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an emerging consensus to keep it simpler. Agreed. Raggz (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would simply like to say...

...that i don't edit anonymously. Those IP's aren't me. I just did a whois on them and they all go back to the largest ISP in Taiwan. If i'm not mistaken, then that particular ISP serves well over 10 million people. I would not be suprised if a few of them take an interest in Wikipedia; if i'm not mistaken, one of the citations i provided above is from an english teacher who lives in the same city i do.

At any rate, i think that, for someone who knew how, finding some way to spoof an IP address is probably quite simple. But whoever it is, that person is not me.Stone put to sky (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox Issues

San Juan, Jr., E. (2006-09-18). Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization. Monthly Review Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

San Juan, Jr., E. (2007-04-28). Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity. Asian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Simbulan, Roland G. (2005-05-18). The Real Threat. Seminar. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. "Distinctions will be drawn between individual terrorism (the September 11 attacks); International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians); State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel); and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)." :

This citation will be deleted soon, even without consensus, because it denies policy and for this reason consensus is not required. Reverting will result in some form of Dispute Resolution, to determine if this citation requires deletion by policy. The policy challenge is WP:REDFLAG. All that you need to do to prevent deletion is to provide a "mainstream media" confirmation of the claimed state terrorism for (1) The bombing of Afghanistan as an act of state terrorism and (2) US assistance to Israel (which resulted in a Nobel Prize). These are "extraordinary claims", and this citation does not meet policy requirement as a reliable source. As I said, all that is necessary to deny this claim is to offer a "mainstream media" echo. Please do this. If you need time, just ask. Otherwise this citation will require deletion. Raggz (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The first E. San Juan piece does seem to talk about US state terrorism (as part and parcel of Philippine state terror) the second and third ones may not but I did not look closely.

Second one literally uses the phrase; third uses it in the preface and conclusion without direct attribution. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating your argument against the Cohn article for the fifth time (in a random section) will not get you very far. We already have a whole section about this above, remember? I repeatedly challenged your incorrect usage of WP:REDFLAG there and you never responded but now are invoking it again. The article is from a scholar in a scholarly journal and does not need a "mainstream media echo." There is nothing in the "redflag" policy about a "mainstream media echo" (you are literally making that up out of thin air and we all know that--so I suggest you stop invoking it) and that sub-policy (redflag) does not apply to this source and cannot be used in the way you insist on trying to use it. You have no consensus to delete this, and you do not even understand the policy you are invoking. Your stated intention to ignore consensus and editors who tell you that you are misinterpreting policy is disturbing. Your continual and repeated invocation of WP:REDFLAG while ignoring the fact that people keep telling you that you don't understand the policy needs to stop. Personally I've absolutely had it--I've spent hours (literally hours) trying to discuss this policy with you. You obviously either will not or cannot listen, and until you do we will get nowhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Raggz, please don't threaten other editors with dispute resolution if they revert one of your edits. That could not be less helpful. Even if you don't view "if you revert me we'll go to dispute resolution" as a threat, believe me when I say that that's how it comes off.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that we have discussed if WP:REDFLAG, and we still disagree.

WP:REDFLAG

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; ... surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography.

The claims that Cohn are making are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known".
US aid to Israel is a historical event.
The invasion of Afghanistan is one as well.
Is her claim not covered by mainstream news media? If it is, why not save us all a lot of time and explain this at this point?

We now need go through the dispute resolution process? I do not feel that we agree on policy, nor do we seem to be making progress. You seem to have strong feelings on this. Should we discuss this further? I'm fine with more discussion, but are we likely to make any progress? Raggz (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Reiterating your argument against the Cohn article for the fifth time (in a random section) will not get you very far. We already have a whole section about this above, remember?". Of course. People have asked not to use so many sections, so I am respecting this by now using the bottom of the page. Raggz (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, people have asked you not to create so many new sections. In re-starting this thread down here you are essentially creating a new section, which is precisely what people do not want you to do. You abandoned the other discussion on Cohn awhile ago and so now we are starting over from zero. It's incredibly frustrating to edit this way. However, I'll reiterate my argument on the REDFLAG policy yet again and hope you respond directly this time. Here I am quoting myself in the section on Cohn above in yet another attempt to make you respond directly to my argument:

"If you re-read that section of WP:V you'll notice that i[t] says "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used."

Can you please respond to this directly? Specifically, can you respond to my assertion that the REDFLAG policy does not provide a criteria for removing a source, rather it merely offers examples of the kind of sources that might be problematic? Also, can you acknowledge that the policy does not say "surprising claims must be echoed in the mainstream media?" Read it again please Raggz--the policy simply does not say this. Please, please engage directly with those points--don't go off on a tangent.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert D. Kaplan. "Supremacy by Stealth", The Atlantic Monthly, The Atlantic Monthly Group, July/August 2003. The word terrorism does not appear in this article.

Falk, Richard (2004-01-28). Gandhi, Nonviolence and the Struggle Against War. The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. Raggz (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 2007-02-02. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. Raggz (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Terror Case Erodes US Credibility, Critics Say", Inter Press Service, 2005-09-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. Raggz (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. Raggz (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism organized and directed by the CIA. Granma. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. Raggz (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, if you are indeed arguing what i think you are arguing, you are entirely mistaken in your belief that each source referenced within this article MUST have the word 'terrorisim' within the source in order for that source to be referenced within this article. Please do not even attempt to use that as the basis for any of your work here, because it is not a legitimate point. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will second the sensible points made by RedPenOfDoom. Raggz has no grounds to go on a deleting spree just because a particular source does not mention US and state terrorism.BernardL (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these claims have been responded to above. In each case, legitimate, mainstream dismissals of your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines were given. In each case, you dropped the argument without offering counter-arguments or defense, instead shifting your indignation to a new target. Then the pattern was repeated.

All of these sources you mention have been carefully vetted and determined, after quite a few hours of wranglingg, to be legitimate in the context of their usage and presentation. Their inclusion here is the result of demands made by people who have opposed this article and insisted upon documented evidence of the assertions and claims made by the sources herein. While it would be very nice if we could restructure the article and make it more in keeping with scholarly rhetoric, the unfortunate truth is that simply deleting these sources will only result in weakening the content and assisting those people who would like to see this page deleted.

My suggestion is, once again, that you prepare a sandbox and work on some material so that we can see what direction you would like to take the page. When we have some of your own material to work with then we can begin to discuss where we can go from there. Until that time, however, I am concerned that your motivation to get these sources removed is not to improve the depth and scope of the article but instead only to introduce a particular point of view to it, to try and limit the information presented here about how the U.S. government goes about some things.

I, for one, am open to the idea of introducing material that is more sympathetic to the United States Government's position. Unfortunately, every attempt i have ever made to get that sort of information included has been quickly deleted. If that is your motivation, then i am sure we can work together; i am not, however, going to write it for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talk • contribs)

While not overly familiar with WP:REDFLAG as a policy, I think I can pretty safely say that the intention is not to allow Raggz - or any other editor - to simply delete sourced material, together with the relevant cite, on the basis that they personally have never heard of the argument or assertions being made in that source, or on the basis that they happen to disagree with that argument; or to demand that the argument has to have been repeated in a newspaper article if it is going to be allowed to stay. If that were the case, the most ignorant editors here would of course be entitled to remove virtually the entire content of this encyclopedia, since most of the facts, assertions and arguments recorded here would all be news to them.

In fact of course this policy simply means that when a genuinely odd claim - for example, say, that "fish are mammals" - appears in an article here, referenced to a seemingly respectable source, that should raise questions about whether the source is in fact as reliable as it seems. Redflag does not apply in this case because a) in fact the claim about state terrorism in the Cohn article is not extraordinary, and b) because we have since established anyway that Cohn is a reliable academic source. --Nickhh (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read the policy. A challenge by REDFLAG is subjective, but must be made in good faith. Once challenged, the defining test is if there is a "mainstream media" echo. Another less important test is if someone claims that there is a conspiracy, that the Truth is not getting out from the mainstream media. It is my opinion that you misunderstand the policy. Raggz (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, it is my opinion that you misunderstand the policy. Please reply to my comment made in the next section on this very issue so we can get this resolved. This edit is the comment to which I am referring. Please address this issue in the next section. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article is a POV Fork

There are three major questions:

Does this article comply with NPOV?

It is obvious that this article has never been in compliance with NPOV. Does anyone debate this?

The important question is if people believe that progress is being made? Is progress being made? Raggz (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.

Read the first source quoted: There is consensus that this source alone represents all reasonable arguments about the US/Israel relationship. Cohn argues that the US/Israel relationship is "state terrorism" and is the only claim ever made by anyone for this (so, the REDFLAG challenge.) Even if the REDFLAG challenge fails, does the text and this source present all views fairly? Obviously no effort whatever has been made to comply with NPOV, which is proof that this entire article is a POV Fork. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Once again you are misinterpreting what is written and how it is used. The source in question is presented only as a way of verifying and validating that there are, in actual fact, reliable legal professionals who assert that the United States is guilty of State Terrorism. Nothing more. As such, it is the very definition of NPOV: the article makes no assertions about whether the cases in question are valid or invalid, whether the events in question are ethical, unethical, justified, or legal. It simply presents the facts regarding the use of the phrase "State Terrorism" and how this has come to be associated with the United States.

For the article to be POV it would need to include commentary -- commentary from the editors -- that makes claims regarding the morality, validity, or legality of the events and actions presented herein (claims made by the sources themselves are nothing more than facts and material for the aritcle). The editors of this article have gone to great lengths to avoid including their own commentary; so far as i can see, the article is nothing more than a presentation of certain facts and reliably sourced claims, nothing more. Where is it that you perceive a particular point of view as emerging? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Q: Does this article comply with NPOV? A: Mostly. The material presented generally is accurate representations of what the original sources have stated. What might help mitigate any question of NPOV is the presentation of other views of these topics if they exist. i.e. Someone stating that Cuba did not file a lawsuit accusing the US of state terrorism. Or someone directly addressing that the purposeful nuking of civilian targets in Japan was not state terrorism. Or someone stating that the rape and torture of the nun in Central America was either not terrorism or was not connected to the US. The relegation of 'opposition' to an unsourced section at the bottom should be corrected. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus opposing compliance with WP policies?

There is a consensus (in my opinion) to ignore WP policy. Raggz (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you perceive this consensus as having been reached? For my part, i see nothing but constant reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, all in the attempt to explain your own misinterpretations of usage. It seems to me that there is a wide consensus only that your own usage of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is somehow flawed. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IGNORE ALL RULES WP:IAR

This section is to “clear the air” and by this policy anyone may say anything they want about me ‘’in this section’’ and I cannot complain. If you edit into this section, anyone may say anything about you as well.

’’’The POV Corps’’’: You know who you are. If you belong to the POV Corps, your motive for editing this article is ‘’primarily’’ POV-based and your responsibility to edit on WP in compliance with policy is secondary. We all have povs, which is not an issue. The issue is putting your pov ‘’ahead’’ of NPOV. I have done this myself many times, but never intentionally, so I am not condemning anyone. Look at the article. (1) Are all of the relevant fact presented ‘’as is required’’? (2) Are the opposing arguments fairly included?

When you read the article and ask yourself these questions I expect that you will decide to quietly resign from the POV Corps. All that resignation requires is that make your ‘’primary responsibility’’ at WP policy compliance. I expect that we all will retain povs, and that we will debate these. If anyone refuses to resign from the POV Corps, they do not belong at WP until they do. That is my opinion. Raggz (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I would ask you to refactor (i.e. basically remove) this section asap. Nothing at all will be gained, and certainly the air will not be cleared, by having a section where we can sling mud. Referring to editors - even without naming them - as the "POV Corps" is not at all constructive. It's an ad hominem attack. I will not participate in this section and hope that no one else does either. Again, please consider removing this entirely. I'm sure no one will object.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is considerable resentment built up, and we need a place to let it out. I believe that there is a need to air things out and that this will be constructive. I'm not surprised that you feel as you do, and I have more respect because of how you feel. Look at how many words I have written seeking consensus above and within the archives. That didn't work, I'm opening myself up, I want to hear.

Look at the article...do you say there is POV balance or compliance? The very title of this article means that it is about opinions, and it is almost entirely about opinions - facts are nearly excluded by the title selection. What does NPOV say about balancing opinions? Is there one section with such a balance? Does even one part list all of the relevant opinions? No, it is one long POV Fork. Raggz (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the number and quality of the sources provided i would have to say that this article is clearly based upon facts and note that any article that's able to expand to this length is clearly addressing a widely debated issue. Of course, it is possible for people to have differing opinions about the phrase "state terrorism" and whether or not it applies to the United States; but what cannot be denied is that this is a passionate issue about which there is much debate. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to help people come to understand difficult and confusing topics. That's what this particular article does: it presents the facts surrounding a contentious and confusing issue.

Bigtimepeace and i have both said that we are open to a re-working of the article content. We both would like to see more balance brought to the page. Unfortunately, merely deleting content will not serve that end. There must be a fundamental change in the direction of the page. The only thing needed is for somebody to actually make the attempt, so this seems a great opportunity for you: why don't you make some suggestions and show us how you think this subject should be treated? We are all willing to take those ideas into consideration. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this article fail to comply with NPOV because it is a POV Fork?

What is a POV Fork?

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.”’’.

Look at the definitions section. Why doesn’t the text in this article comply with the definitions in this article? Why the variance with state terrorism from which this was forked? Raggz (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was never forked from there. The two articles developed independently. That this article has hundreds of sources is testament enough to its qualification as a topic of wide debate and interest. It has withstood repeated AfDs precisely by virtue of its solid sourcing and references. Where is it that you perceive the POV as having become skewed? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you are misapplying this section of FORK. FORK would apply if we had an article "Allegations of State Sponosored Terrorism by US" and an article say "Defense of alleged US sponsored Terrorism". This article is a perfectly legitimate, seperate, SUB TOPIC of the more general "State Sponsored Terrorism" article and has nothing at all to do with POV FORKing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What should be done about the lack of compliance with NPOV policy?

(Note: I did not title this section, which was blank aside from the title, I'm just commenting). I don't think this article is a POV fork, and I don't think people are trying to ignore policy (there is a disagreement about the meaning of certain policies - which is par for the course here).

I do think there need to be more "opposing views" in this article (i.e. those arguing - implicitly or explicitly - that certain US actions were not state terrorism) and I have said that for months now. Raggz I would be overjoyed if you wanted to work on this. In the "The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed" section above I offered a possible source for that section (the comment starts after the bolded word source). Other than Giovanni no one commented on that proposed source. Raggz if you want to work on adding that source in along with me I think it would be a good start to bringing in the "oppose" arguments. If you are truly concerned about this you need to gather sources too, but we could start with this one if you think it appropriate. Let me know.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I could turn this into a real article. I have not said that there is no hope for it. This however is not a decision for two editors. Raggz (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what you think of the source I described in the section above and if you would be interested in trying to add some material to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki section to help balance that out. Two people can definitely start working on that, eventually of course getting feedback from others.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic itself requires an article with a POV bias. Take the Cuba section, the topic requires that the three invasions by Cuba of its neighbors in 1959 not be mentioned. The horrific crimes against humanity committed by Cuba that forced a half million (of seven million) Cubans to flee to Miami cannot be mentioned. The continuing war crimes against the families remaining and the rage of the Cubans in Miami cannot be mentioned. The threat and real plans to invade Puerto Rico cannot be mentioned. The assasinations of refugees in Miami by Cuba cannot be mentioned. The Cold War cannot be mentioned, the nuclear missles in Cuba cannnot be mentioned, the fact that Americans were digging fallout shelters to try to survive a Cuban nuclear attack cannot be mentioned. The Reader doesn't know that the Cold War was involved as the motivation of the US acts of war against Cuba in 1961. The article assumes that NPOV can be attained when the article's topic is restricted to the actions on one side in any war. This topic can never really attain NPOV. NPOV will require a topic that permits NPOV.

What about an article on US atrocities during WWII? There were many, there always are some in war. The bigger the war, the more atrocities. Our new article will not mention the war itself, because the topic is not the war - but is only about the atrocities. We make a list, describe each in the most horrifying detail, and then we have a fine pov biased article in our encyclopedia. This is what this article is about. Raggz (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will help to "add some material to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki section to help balance that out" but can we do this with this topic? We will need to explain WWII first. We will need to document the Japanese and US atrocities in full. This was a brutal war where 60 million people had already died, and there was a powerful motivation to avoid the few million casualties that would occur during the invasion of Japan. Do you realize what you are asking? In context it would be good to cover these topics, but an attempt to insert a bit of balance will fail. WWII cannot be covered in two sentences.

Our topic assures that we will fail. We cannot discuss Japan. No war can be covered if we are not permitted to discuss both sides. Raggz (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If "the topic itself requires an article with a POV bias" and "assures that we will fail" then, with all due respect, why are you working on this article Raggz? If you think it can never be made NPOV, I assume you want it deleted? But then why spend so much time on this talk page? I'll note that I asked if you wanted to work on one small issue and instead of simply answering you posted a long comment arguing that no progress can ever be made because the article itself is not worthy of being in the encyclopedia (at least that's how I read it). Your tendency to respond to specific questions about working on the article by shifting the subject (I said nothing about Cuba) and speaking in generalities makes it very difficult to work with you Raggz. And if you really think we are doomed to "fail" in improving this article then why are you even trying? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

On the matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we categorically do not need to discuss all of WWII. In order to provide balance we simply need to provide sources that offer a different take on the atomic bombing of Japan (i.e. a perspective different from the "this is state terrorism" angle). I think that this is very doable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I would be very surprised if Walzer's description of "war terrorism" was never challenged. We know how liberal philosophers love to talk and talk and talk about every little thing each one of them has ever said. It's a substantial industry in itself.BernardL (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted this page at the WP:RS noticeboard

Since no one seems to be able to agree about sources and references and every effort Raggz makes to clean things up is reverted, I thought I'd kick it to some outsiders who specialize in dealing with this particular area of policy. Jtrainor (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment there, though I don't think that place gets much traffic. I'm going to open a Request for Comment on the more limited issue of sourcing and WP:REDFLAG. Raggz has said that he "will not debate WP policy here." We need some outside comments on this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you also placed a complaint on ANI, as well:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_warring_and_WP:OWN_issues I left a comment there, responding, but other editors might want to respond.

I dropped a note on ANI about the RFC below. Maybe this RFC will help us move forward. Some outside opinion would be very useful I think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Has anyone considered renaming the article to help resolve some of the problems in the long-run? Focusing primarily on "state terrorism" seems a little too specialist to me and it provokes passions on both sides. How about something simple like Criticism of United States foreign policy? At the moment it is merged with the general article on US FP.

If the criticism page was demerged it would allow a more meaningful discussion of the negative aspects of US foreign policy as a whole. For specific events that could be considered "state terrorism", the page could refer to the articles of those events. John Smith's (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh John, your rational and excellent suggestion is so naive and innocent about how irrational this page works. There has been massive debate, edit wars, and reports to WP:ANI about changing the title. Several Arbcoms have been called on members of this article, and several have been indefinitely booted. I suggested a similar title John, and everyone on the left and right scoffed. If you want to you can request a page move, I can show you how, just ask. Good luck.

Here is (part) of the sorid history about this article's title:

User:Travb 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The proper forum might be Unites States Foreign Policy if a fair and balanced article is desired. NPOV policy requires that all views be addressed by that article. Why an article dedicated just to one argument? 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Raggz (talk)

Boy is it weird that you just suggested that John. Literally thirty minutes ago I was thinking that that exact phrasing might be a title that would work and even checked and found that it was a redirect (I've long been interested in changing the title to this - Travb I don't remember your suggestion but I thought it was a bit different than that, maybe I'm wrong). Such an article would take a lot of work, and would be susceptible to the criticism that it was a fork of the main Foreign Relations of the United States page (personally I think that would be perfectly acceptable). I would say if we did that we should have a fairly significant section dedicated to the accusation that the US has committed terrorism. We'd have to cut down what we have here quite a bit, but I think that would be doable and we could and should retain all the key sections with many slimmed down a bit. The difficulty would be to gin up interest in the new article. The "criticism" could come from the right, left, and center so it would require a lot more work. It also could/should encompass a much larger time frame (theoretically we would want to discuss critics of the Quasi War, for example). I would be interested in this idea and would hope that others would give it serious thought. However I think it would be a very difficult undertaking and I don't think we should rush into it or anything (obviously). It's weird though that we don't have an article called Criticism of United States foreign policy. A lot of our problems would drop off if we could move the best parts of our content here over there and then add more material to the new article, much more broad in scope.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree which changing the title. There is nothing wrong with this title, nor it is too specialist. All states with notable allegations (or facts) regarding State Terrorism should have their own article like this one. That it elicits strong opinions from editors who are emotionally connected to the subject is no excuse not to cover it per WP's policies on NPOV, Neutrality, Verification, OR, SYN, etc. This articles existence and perseverance in the face of nationalist objectors proves its viability. Criticism of US foreign policy could be a different article, although such an article would soon be very huge and probably need to be broken up into several other ancillary article, one of which would be this one. So I'm in favor of such an article, but it should not affect this article, as one section would be detailed analysis of the various instances of US actions that notable scholars have described as instances of State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

US Foreign Policy is criticized for many many many reasons beyond the aspects that are construed as terrorism. It would be fine to have an article on the general criticisms of the Foreign Policy that refers here for specifics about this sub-issue, but as has been noted, simply the information about allegations of state terrorism border on having an article that exceeds typical page/article length in and of itself. 144.15.255.227 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) edit conflict logged me out TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right Bigtimepeace, my requested page move was different, I suggested:

Political violence by the United States

This suggestion was based on Successful precedent, which I suggest you all read please.

User:Giovanni33, you know my consistent argument, "Allegations" is a weasel word.

I agree with User:TheRedPenOfDoom, Unites States Foreign Policy is too broad, and there is already a page on this. There is violence in all of these accounts, which is not adequately covered in the title United States Foreign Policy.

But at this point honestly, you could request a page move to Baloney and ham sandwich and I would support it.

~~I have a sneaking, unfounded, very paranoid suspicion that this name change was brought up to simply weaken strengthening alliances.~~ Everytime name change is suggested, everyone, except for the conservative delete lobby, disagrees. Trav (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that we don't have an article called Baloney and ham sandwich! This is a true travesty! (which is not to say it has anything to do with Travb - that seems unlikely). To hell with this American Terrorism article, there is far more important work to be done.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redpen, the length of the article does not indicate it cannot be reduced in size. A lot of topics in the world today are very, very substantial. But as I suggested, that can be bypassed by simply linking to the main articles rather than trying to discuss everything on one page. Maybe the start for this article could be to move certain information to particular pages and have more choice summaries here.
BigT, even if it were a lot of work it would be worthwhile if it resolved some of the disputes.

Guys, if you can't form a consensus on how to move things forward I would try to crystalise the nature of the disputes in a good-faith manner and then seek informal mediation, as I think one problem is a lack of trust between various users. John Smith's (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Size is an issue as it shows the body of literature on a subject that warrants its own article. If we have enough information about one specific topic that can fill an article, then it should have its own article. We don't need to lose any information on this article. Rather, it can use a lot of expanding. The most important fact here is that there is a large and still growing body of literature considering US foreign policy from the conceptual perspective of state terrorism and concluding that U.S. actions have merited the description. Therefore, whatever other articles are proposed, this particular subject/context, is one that needs to be maintained, expanded, and explored--even if its a very controversial subject. About changes to this title, in keeping with its conceptual framework, the word "allegations" is optional to me. Its fine if we remove that to simply "State Terrorism by the United States," and then let the article differenciate that various claims (all factual in nature). The content of the subsections can make it clear the nature of each allegation. However, the current title was the result of much dispute and is the most stable, most accepted, result of the compromise of this debate. So I suggest we not worry about changing the title again at this point and instead work on the content of the body of the article. We have good work ready to be added soon on the Phillipines, Columbia, and Cuba.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the proposed name change. as per Giovanni "there is a large and still growing body of literature considering US foreign policy from the conceptual perspective of state terrorism and concluding that U.S. actions have merited the description." There is certainly good reason to construct another separate article that is broader in scope. I'm all for that.BernardL (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

John this also has already been tried: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#RESULTS

These were result of a Strawpoll, which a neutral mediator User:WikiZach decided the results for. Several people then refused to abide by the results.

The only thing that stops edit wars here is page protection for long periods of time.

Here is what will happen John, here is my prediction that no one will remember, based on my two year involvement with this page:

John, as a neutral peace maker, you will eventually leave the page, tired of getting no were.
Raggz will eventually be chased off the page, leaving behind only the staunchest leftist.
In several months, maybe years, this page will eventually be deleted. Trav (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Past history might well be cause for pessimism, but I don't see a reason to voice pessimistic sentiments. It would be great if more people were working on this page and could weigh in on some of the issues here but that's not where we are at. FYI Trav, because I don't know how closely you've been watching, no one is trying to run Raggz off of this page, despite some real problems with that user's editorial style (irrespective of the content debate). I'm on the verge of letting myself be run off the page though...--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"The only thing that stops edit wars here is page protection for long periods of time." I have not seen any serious threats of edit wars breaking out here recently. I have not seen much in the way of any discussions moving towards concensus, but edit warring has not been an issue.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A comparison to the article circa October 2006 [[8]] reveals significant improvement: 3-4 times more citations. references from professors from Princeton (Falk, Mayer), Yale (Selden), Columbia (Walzer), Human Rights Watch, and numerous others, a substantial reference section listing academic studies like Death Squad: An Anthropology of State Terror, Western State Terrorism and War and State Terrorism, and an opposing views section. I personally am not opposed to working with editors who are critical of the concept in an effort to include balancing content that is relevant to the topic. The problem is that the only right-wing editors that I have ever encountered on this page keep making blanket claims about deleting entire sections and quite often the whole article. I have yet to encounter one right-wing editor who made the effort to inform himself of the literature, which always seems an important prerequisite to me, if one is to engage in an honest manner in the editing of an article.BernardL (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing the article to such a title would be, essentially, altering the article from a ten-page treatment to a 500 page book. I have no problem with such a page being created, but this particular page treats its subject rather well. The particular subject treated by this page is how the idea of State Terrorism relates to the United States and its actions. As i have said before: i think that the page suffers from a fundamentally flawed structure, but that is not because of those of us insisting on the less-convenient aspects of this page. From the beginning, i have been interested in bringing forth a discussion that looks a little more like [| this]; my every effort to work towards that end was, however, deleted by that steadfast group of deletionists who so love to make their presence felt, here.

Now, i think that article i just linked to suffers from some serious flaws; certainly, the events and discussions that take place on this page should be included in Wikipedia and by -- by all means -- should be referenced here; but perhaps they shouldn't be only upon this page. Perhaps less detail is in order and links to other pages would be more suitable. To work in that way, however, would be very troublesome for maintenance. The simple fact is that it is much easier to get material deleted from Wikipedia than it is to get it recognized as valuable.

So i can understand that some might think it would be better to create a monster-sized entry like "Crticisms of U.S. Foreign Policy"; but if y'all think that page would be in any way less contentious or more likely to escape the attention of the deletionists who currently afflict this page then y'all are dreaming. The most likely result would be a broad but shallow treatment of U.S. foreign policy. Because the page would be so huge, most of the information on this page would gradually be whittled away, deleted or replaced by t.v.-style platitudes, ultimately to be reduced to the level of pre-school rhetoric that currently dominates today's "mainstream media".

Further, there would be outcry that there is a category starting with the word "Criticisms....". And yes -- i assure you that those who would make that argument would win. So in the end, we would simply see this article wiped off of wikipedia and the information presented here would disappear.

Except that this information is precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should be serving people. This is the sort of thing that many people around the world know about, for which there are many witnesses, to which many voices can contribute, refer, and elaborate upon, but for which there is virtually no monied support for in the U.S. These events that are presented here indisputably occurred. Nobody questions that. They were indisputably the direct and acknowledged result of U.S. policy. They are the source of untold tensions and pushback against U.S. influence around the world. It is my firm faith that, by presenting these facts here, people are being given a neutral, unbiased glimpse of information that is critical to making informed decisions and fundamental to making the world more humane.

So obviously i, myself, cannot singlehandedly hold off the attempts to change the title of this article. But i will not agree to further watering down of the name. Changing it will only result in greater problems and watering down of content. The original title was either "State Terrorism and the United States" or "State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States". In a world where the United States Government is champing at the bit to initiate a war against Syria and Iran based solely upon its insistence that these two countries are guilty of "State Sponsored Terrorism" it is unquestionable that either title is perfectly sensible and neutral. To presume otherwise is to assume that the usage of that phrase by the U.S. government is not neutral, that it is, instead, merely cynical rhetoric, devoid of content and without foundation in law.

And to presume that is to transgress far beyond mere "WP:OR" or "WP:SYN".

That the deletionists here are not aware of this obvious and objectionable inconsistency and lack of patriotism does not surprise me. There are few people in the U.S. whose understanding of national and international relationships is subtle enough to grasp that truth. But i would hope that the rest of you here give careful consideration to what i'm saying.

To wipe this article -- or its information -- off of Wikipedia is to simply give in to the most cynical and undeserving political motives. There is no justification for it, and i hope that those here demanding yet another name change will acknowledge the likely result of their suggestions and back away. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there are lots of "criticism of X" pages on Wikipedia that are not deleted. The idea that renaming the page accordingly would lead to its eventual deletion is a joke - if anything it would make it easier for it to stick around.

As for it becoming a 500 page book, again, that is not necessary. The problem with long articles is people refusing to use choice selection and instead throw in everything they find into one place. I have put a message about the article length below. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to say that again

I am a long winded old man and sometimes i post more than is good for anyone involved. For that i'm sorry. But i would like to draw attention to my two fundamental points:

In a world where the United States Government is using the accusation of "State Sponsored Terrorism" to provoke war upon two different nations then it is clear that the phrase itself can only be interpreted one of two ways: as a neutral, legal term of evidence (in which case there is no "POV" per Wikipedia's guidelines), or it is merely a cynical propagandism. In other words: to assume that the usage of "State Terrorism" is inherently POV is to presume that U.S.'s own usage is not neutral, is only cynical propaganda, devoid of content and without foundation in law.

For my part, i would prefer to believe that the U.S. government is actually something more than a machine that will say anything to provoke war. I hold the standards implicit in this term as valuable measures, and as such i feel they should be evaluated as critically and objectively as our own human frailty might allow.

Second:

The content presented in this article is clearly meaningful and useful. It is also contentious. But short of simply deleting the content it appears that the objections will never disappear. I, for my part, go out of my way to encourage every person objecting to this page to contribute content for our consideration. I have yet to see one -- not a single one -- take me up on that offer. That says nothing about me, and i promise: given material for consideration i will be happy to respond as critically and analytically as this altogether important subject demands.

I say it again: i welcome contribution by people dissatisfied with the article. I will be strict, but i will not be unfair.

Changing the name, however, will not facilitate contributions. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it safe to say there is no consensus to change the title, or fundamental framework this article rests on. For that I'm glad, as there is much material that needs to be elaborated on, and there is no reason why this article can't continue to improve in doing so, in a NPOV and Encylopedic manner. So lets move on... Much progress has been made and I look forward to moving on with the Philippines, Columbia, and improving of the Cuba sections. It would also be nice to have a conservative editor to assist in actually improving the article instead of trying to get rid of it.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did anyone suggest getting rid of anything? The suggestion was to move text to the articles in question. John Smith's (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with moving content to other articles where they fit (many wikipedia articles have some overlap), but I'm not ok with taking anything away from this article, because to do so would be to remove it from the conceptual framework of State Terrorism, a very important concept in our time, and one which is growing in the literature. So if you are not talking about changing the title/subject, and not deleting any content from this article, but only adding information from this article to related article, then I'm all for that.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're telling me that the page can't ever drop below 100kb? That is a rather bizzare attitude to take. Clearly any subject can be condensed if editors will simply take the time to work on it. John Smith's (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is so patently untrue. A properly treated subject of any controversy, depth, or importance will necessitate more words devoted to its explanation and exposition. As it is, the article is currently much shorter than The United States, Law, World War II, The Vietnam War, and comparable to Human Rights, as well as quite a few other pages. Obviously, articles that spark controversy will be longer than those that don't; articles treating subjects with a long history will also clearly be longer than those which don't. This subject wins on both counts; add to that the public nature of Wikipedia editing practices and controversial arguments become even longer; add to that the controversy surrounding the historical events that this particular subject treats and presto: even longer.

It seems to me odd, then, that you are objecting to this article's length. Whether or not it is long is relative to whether or not the subject requires that many words to elaborate the information and concepts presented therein. Obviously, this one does. Just like the Evolution page; except that page happens to go into much greater depth, detail and exposition about the fundamental ideas and arguments than is probably needed. This page, on the other hand, has included lots and lots of evidence -- for the simple reason that there were, once upon a time, people called Tom Harrison, TBeatty, and Morton Devonshire who -- among others -- targeted this page as one they wanted deleted, and towards that end spared no means to effect their will. As a result of their activities and constant challenging of rather uncontroversial facts and widely acknowledged information, several editors (or at the very least, myself) were forced, against their editorial judgment, to develop the page in the direction we now see it has taken.

Having witnessed that process i can firmly assert i 'know' that, should this supporting evidence provided here be deleted, then those statements elaborating the fundamental themes of the page -- that the U.S. has been accused of State Terrorism, that there is solid logic and evidence supporting these charges, and that the International Community as a whole is extremely concerned about the U.S.' official positions regarding these issues -- will also be deleted. That fear (or hope) is what no doubt motivates the other editors here, as well.

That said, there is clearly a great deal of expansion that could be added to this page; as it is, it gives the impression that is only these countries, and no others, which so condemn the U.S. I am open to ideas about how to develop linking sub-pages, but again: because of the relevancy and reliability of the included material to the page-subject -- and because of the clear hostility of some to the nature of the facts and information provided here -- there simply is no justification for reducing page content on the basis of it being "too long". Stone put to sky (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is so "patently untrue", how is it that an article I worked on to FA-status, Japan, got in well under 100kb? Are you telling me there is less to talk about in Japan than the US?

It is hardly odd that I am objecting to length. You seem to forget the average reader - are they really going to trawl through all of this? If no, then clearly this article is going the wrong way! If you say "yes" then I think with all honesty you are thinking of whether you want to read through this. Go check the "rule of thumb" section on the article size project page. I am not saying it is a rule, but if you want to aim this page towards FA status one day it will probably fail if you can't reduce it considerably. That is another observation because I've seen it happen to numerous articles. If you don't care because you'd prefer to write it as you want it then you're not thinking of the people Wikipedia is designed for (uninformed/uninvolved but potentially interested editors). John Smith's (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The average reader will not trawl through all of Law, World War II, or The United States, either. The average reader of Britannica or MSN-whatever-it-is doesn't "trawl" through the entirety of each entry there, either. This entry is here to provide a syllabary of the relevant information to which a reader may refer for further study; it is, as it stands, very successful at that. Yes, it could be more concise, and yes, perhaps a re-organization would be useful. But the unfortunate truth is that you have yet to contribute any suggestions beyond vague demands based upon assertions about your personal vision's value. Pardon me if i am skeptical; i have been intermittently present on this page for nearly four years, now, and have seen many people like yourself come in, demand change, deletions, reorganization, or what-not, and then steadfastly refuse to contribute anything. Most of them then disappeared to make similar demands on other pages. To a man, their contributions were always to promote a particular political POV while censoring another.

If you are so certain that your ideas and experience are as valuable as you clearly think they are then it should be a very small step for you to create a sand-box and start showing us what you're suggesting. Until you do so, however, we will remain skeptical that your intent is anything beyond the mere deletion of content.

As i have already stated above, several times: the demands for this much information are the result of demands for deletion. Similarly, it appears that an informal pattern has emerged over the years:

Some editor appears and starts making repeated and altogether random challenges of the sources here, basing their challenges upon thinly-stretched interpretations of wikipolicy.
Shortly afterwards, an AfD is brought.

That has happened now at least four times that i, personally, can remember and -- what do you know! -- it seems to be happening again. For all i know it may have been going on ever since the very first incarnation of this page. My point, however, is that your efforts may very well have got Japan improved. That is rather irrelevant here, though, because that article has never been openly and repeatedly targeted for deletion. Morton Devonshire had this page listed up on his "Conservative Noticeboard" right next to a long list of "Successfully Deleted Articles", with every last one fitting perfectly the agenda of the "conservative" U.S. political mainstream. While that username may have disappeared, considering the convenience of cut-and-past and Yahoo! Groups it seems to me that there is little reason to doubt that the board itself hasn't been relocated somewhere else.

If you are going to hold up for me the article on Japan -- which is now at "just under 100K" -- then i'd like to suggest that your next effort might be The United States, which is nearly twice that length. The populations are about the same in the two countries, and while Japan's territory is a bit smaller it more than makes up for it in length of history; thus, it should be an extremely easy task for you to reduce that page and bring it more into line with your vision of what an Encyclopedia entry should be. I'm sure that once you get it beneath 100K i'll be quite impressed.

Unfortunately, this page is not a geographic/cultural/historical page; instead, it deals with the recent history of warfare, violence, and international law, all extremely large and contentious subjects. I would worry that experiences on Japan and The United States won't really count for much over here; thus, perhaps it would be good if you spent some time re-working the World War II and Law pages, since both of those are considerably longer, far more detailed, and much harder to read than this one. Once you have demonstrated your expertise in reducing those articles i will have no doubt that you are well suited to offering effective leadership on this page.

On the other hand, those suggestions do seem a bit extreme. So perhaps your best bet would be to simply create a sand-box and show us what you are thinking of; that simple gesture would go a very long way towards convincing many people here that you are suggesting more than the whimsical removal of material that you personally object to.

And please, do correct me if i'm wrong -- but isn't that motivation -- the removal of material according to personal whimsy -- much, much more contrary to Wikipedia's spirit than the small matter of this page's length? Our article is divided into sub-sections, any one of which is easily parsed and each the result of the hard-won work and compromise and work of a great many anonymous and varied editors (far more than merely me -- this isn't my page, by any means). To simply delete material based on one editors' personal inclination is a far more serious transgression.

So why don't you make that sand-box? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review requested

I hope that if a good number uninvolved editors take the time to evaluate this article fully, at least most of you will all agree to work together on that basis. John Smith's (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

John, the request that you made was very biased and question-begging. It's also notable that your actual participation in this article has been very limited and you have thus far evidenced precious little knowledge of the subject, especially the relevant literature. I do not think I am going out very far on a limb in suggesting that your real motive for being here is because of personal vendetta you seem to have against Giovanni33. BernardL (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He linked it by adding the template to the top of the page. He was not trying to keep anything a secret. I suggest that you strike your previous statement. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bernard, I find it a real shame that you assume the worst about someone just because they've disagreed with your mate, Giovanni. I take some proactive steps to get outside views and you throw it back in my face. Well I think you rather need to readdress your attitude to the project, because you certainly won't get anyone to help you if you carry on like that. Or would you prefer to chase away others because you want to keep things in this group, lest people with new ideas and views come along?

And how exactly is the review request biased? That I say there are disputes? That I say some editors are motivated by politics? Oh of course, everyone here is acting out of good faith and doesn't have an axe to grind, or a POV to push. I'm sure everyone here thinks Raggz is a helpful and considerate editor - obviously all those messages on his talk page were meant for someone else! Oh dear, it looks like Giovanni's account was hacked by some troublemaker.... John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, accusations of wikistalking from yourself are a wonderful joke, especially given your recent reversion on the Republic of China Navy article. You have this very strange interest in military affairs only when I edit the page in question.

I'm reminded of something involving a pot, a kettle and the colour black..... John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And, did I stay there to continue any arguments, etc? Or did I only make one single edit (as I did)? So the comparison does not hold water. Besides, its a logical fallacy, and doesn't address my actual point that is about you being here--not me. making a one time visit to another article you are on.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you didn't stay because you don't know anything about the Taiwanese Navy and would have looked very foolish if you had tried to discuss the subject. No I suppose the comparison doesn't hold water because I am trying to provide some input on the talk page to help move this article forward, whereas you were being silly in following me around and making an edit that was completely misleading. So, yes, you are right on that front. John Smith's (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your assumption about not knowing anything looking foolish may very well apply to yourself in this article. But to be factual, I only left one edit because you corrected the misleading part I objected to. I did not go there to argue with you, and even if I disagreed, I would have preferred to disengage, esp. if you raised this point, as it would indeed appear to be me seeking further conflict with you (exactly what it appears you are doing here, now). In fact this very thread proves my point--which you continue to ignore.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know far more about this topic than you do about the Taiwanese military. That you "corrected" a "misleading" comment to make it even more misleading is a good example of that.

As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth. If you had sought to avoid conflict you would have ignored Bernard's comment and maybe even welcomed my attempt to get an outside view. But, no, you decided to assume bad faith and jump on it to have a go at me. For once, just once, Giovanni, it would be nice if you practiced what you preached as it would make the place more pleasant for everyone. John Smith's (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT BRING YOUR OUTSIDE CONFLICTS HERE. This page is ONLY for discussing potential edits and changes to this article. IF you cannot play and talk nice here, go elsewhere.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the reality is the direct opposite of what you say, and the irony is that what you say about me applies to yourself. I did not assume bad faith. I said I hope you are here to genuinely help and not back to your wikistalking ways, to seek conflict, after it was pointed out that your role here appears to be such by another editor. However, I did point out that since we disagree and have a history of this to the point of being disruptive enough for an arbcom case, then there is question of appearances, for why you choose to come to this article where I edit most often out 2,199,609other articles articles from you to choose from? Coincidence that its the main article I edit? I think not. I suggested that for the sake of appearance that you are seeking conflict and doing what you have accused me of doing (falsely), and to avoid conflicts per policy (as well as just being wise)- you should disengage. I point out that no where did I assume bad faith, as you do. In your case, that is exactly what you are repeatedly doing, by making a false, bad faith assumption that I "delight in making snide comments...so as to annoy me...etc." That is totally false, and a major violation of Assume Good Faith as well as a personal attack If you don't retract it, I shall report it and your objective disruptive of this article by wikistalking me.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, this is ridiculous. You attacked me and undermined my motives by not assuming good faith. You can't have your cake and eat it by making a cheap jab and then complaining I am not assuming good faith because I complain about your unpleasant attitude. I will not retract any comments if you do not assume good faith yourself and retract what you have said. The one outside user that commented so far came to say that Bernard should strike his suspicions, not that he was right. Report me if you wish - it will show your bad faith. For someone who claims he wants to avoid conflict you want to have the last word and bully me into submission. John Smith's (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that you seem unable or unwilling to respond to a rather simple point, but instead launch into a personal attack and a gross violation of AGF. This sanctimonious and defensiveness behavior suggests that my point was not only quite valid, but apparently true. Are you guilty of wikistalking me here to provoke further drama? Its a simple question. However, instead of addressing this, you seem to think it's ok for you to commit further violations by launching into personal attacks, ironically proving my very point--my concern for your sudden appearance here (and other articles that you show up to right after I edit it, to pick a fight). Drop the sanctimony and stop repeating the lie that I am doing what you are doing. I never failed to assume good faith, as you are doing. Again, I repeat my point that you keep distorting: I said I hope you are here for positive reasons but the appearance that you give when you choose to come to the one article I mainly edit--out of all the article on WP--and engage in further editorial conflict with me---has a very negative appearance for you, and that it would be wise for you reconsider your choices, esp. given our history, and your past wikistalking. But, this friendly advice, and question, you are prove so far unable to respond in a civil, mature, and honest manner, instead opting to hide behind personal attacks, ignoring what I said, and making stuff up. That is a shame, and again it seems to prove you are just here to continue treating Wikipedia as your own personal battle ground.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am not wikistalking you - period. I have an interest in this article, but it is fast disappearing thanks to your unpleasant and combative attitude. Maybe that it what you want - I don't know. My prescence here had nothing to do with you until you made it about you.

Personal attacks? What personal attacks. You complain I make them without saying what they are. Complaining about your behaviour is not a personal attack, it is my view. I could be overreacting just as you are with your cries of "wikistalker!", but that doesn't make it a personal attack.

Your earlier comment was far from prudent. If you meant to act in good faith, you shouldn't have brought up the past troubles, etc by just mentioning what I have allegedly done. If I say "well I hope X is here is good faith and not here to troll/wikistalk/cause trouble as he/she has always done in the past" then most people would assume I was trying to annoy/take a swipe at that individual. An honest response would have been "I am going to assume good faith and hope we can put our past differences behind us". You never, ever bring up your own actions, despite the fact your behaviour has often been less constructive and conflict-causing than mine. Indeed you are continuing to harp on about my "wikistalking", as if saying a certain number of times will change anything.

Your problem is you frequently act in a way you think is ok, and then get horribly upset whenever anyone complains. You are not everyone and others react differently - try to think of how others might react, rather than just insist everyone accept whatever you do because you have decided it is ok. John Smith's (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, John Smith, but it seems to me that you both seem to be provoking one another. While Giovanni might perhaps have worded things in a more delicate manner i see nothing in them that would suggest incivility. On the other hand, i perceive your own behavior as working to provoke the situation and make it worse. There is nothing going on here that isn't mutual, and yes -- it seems to be your own presence that has provoked the situation.

Editors here tend to be rather brusque and unforgiving towards newcomers's input; even so, we maintain our good will and are happy to consider any efforts made to shape or contribute to the article's content. You popped in and, unfortunately, made a few suggestions that are particularly sore spots for discussion. So far it appears that your foremost concern is to delete content and eliminate material. While it may very well be that you have greater hopes for this article, your constant bickering with people about things that occurred elsewhere, coupled with your quick referral of the page to Wiki-admins and intransigent insistence that the article is too long have all served to color you as yet one more deletionist.

Perhaps you should go get some tea and come back when things have cooled down. I would make the same suggestion to Giovanni except that he and a few other editors here are currently involved with some new additions to the article, and his input is valuable.

Otherwise, i presume we'll all be able to avoid any more talk about off-page events. They're irrelevant here.

Should you decide to stay, JohnSmith, i urge you to consider my suggestions below. Until we see some good-faith attempts by you to add content then i worry that you will encounter a lot of resistance to your suggestions.

A sand-box is the best way to go. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, one more VERY IMPORTANT POINT regarding Page Length

If one removes all of the formatting for footnotes and citations the page length is reduced to ~65K.

Obviously, relying solely on the length of the page does not reflect the actual content that is being presented. 65K is a a very common page length, especially in some of the more technical and scientific articles.

It is obviously quite premature to be speaking of reducing this page's length.

Is there consensus for removing the "Too long!" tag at the top, now? Or does John Smith still harbor reservations? Stone put to sky (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do still harbour reservations. So, no, there is not consensus. At the very least wait until the peer review is concluded. If there are no concerns over length in the peer reviews made, by all means remove it. If there are concerns then keep it. John Smith's (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you could easily reduce the size by cutting out some of the citations that are controversial (e.g. from a propaganda mouthpiece/controverisal source) and have other more independent sources on the same point. Also, use the "refname=X" tag instead of repeating sources, "ibid", etc. Though even 65k of text can be considered a lot. John Smith's (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While the article IS long (I don't see anyone debating that point) simply stating that "It is _too_ long." is not a valid arguement for willy nilly cutting to meet arbitrary size target. What _specifically_ DOES NOT BELONG in this article as being out of the focus of the article or innacurate or redundant? Stone put to sky has made an arguement below that generically provides support for including the material in this article. If you have specific content that you feel should go and valid rationale for reducing the material in the article without hampering its ability to accurately report the issues it is covering or leaving it vulnerable for future deletion nominations, please provide SPECIFIC examples for discussion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I be proposing to cut material "willy nilly" if I don't make suggestions as what to cut? Though if you honestly can't think of anything yourself, I would suggest seriously cutting down the quotation in the "Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo" sub-section, given the material is apparently all available on the link provided. Similarly the El Savador blockquote could be cropped. There's the additional factor that the latter comes from a copyrighted work, so really direct quotations should be kept to an absolute minimum - use the "........" method if you need to link points. John Smith's (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for being specific about where your concerns are focused. Having actual parts of the article to work with will be much more productive for gaining concensus than blanket claims of 'its toooooooo long.' I probably wont have any time tonight to tackle your area of concern, but if you would like, feel free to create a sandbox and start playing with the section to cut the fat and leave the meat and when you have something you think may meet concensus from the other project editors, bring it back for comment. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I only have time to make comments on talk pages or quick edits. Sandboxing is probably too much for me, so I will leave it in your capable hands for now. As I said to Sky, if at some point I think I can help out properly I will make a sandbox. John Smith's (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Accusations of POV

John Smith writes, above:

The article is POV because it mainly just presents one POV - that the US supports and carries out state terrorism. That isn't balanced. I'm not surprised there are references because a lot of people out there hate the US and everything it stands for. Is it surprising that the Cuban government would say all that the article mentions about the US? I am sure there are lots of people out there who don't argue because of a separate agenda, but the wealth of material is hardly indicative of anything in particular.

I am here to primarily offer observations. You can ignore them at your will. But there are lots of places material can be chopped and cropped. It is just one thing to do, but it is something that can be done nonetheless. John Smith's (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)}

I would like to respond that the article represents one subject, and that is how the idea of State Terrorism relates to the activities of the United States and its international activities. The question is, as has been pointed out many times, clearly relevant because of the increasing use of the term "State Terrorism" by the United States itself, because of debates currently taking place amongst experts in the UN and International Law, and finally because the issue itself is not a question of "point of view" or "opinion" but instead of legal complaints and the facts upon which they are based.

You say, however, that the article is "POV" because it "just presents...[the idea] that the U.S. supports and carries out state terrorism." Well, from a narrow standpoint i can only respond: of course it does. That's its subject matter. But that's not POV; POV is if we editors were to say "The U.S. committed State Terrorism and that is a very evil thing for it to do. The United States is EVIL! It's the GREAT SATAN!"

That's what POV means, in this context, and this article clearly doesn't do that. So it isn't "POV" in that sense.

But from a wider perspective I also agree -- the article would be better if we were allowed to include more commentary so that we could balance out the condemnations and evidence with clarifying examples, comments from international law experts, and so on. Unfortunately, it is not the editors currently here who have forced the page's current fashion. There is a group of deletionists who -- quite literally -- object to anything on the page that does not make direct reference back to some declaration of U.S. complicity, guilt, or support for State Terrorism. Obviously, if someone insists that a page be reduced to accusations -- and only accusations -- of state terrorism by the United States then the page will wind up looking much as it does now.

Your suggestion that the evidence "could be cropped" is, however, something i disagree with; the evidence here has all been slowly built up in response to repeated attempts to delete content. That is: someone says "You can't say that the U.S. committed State Terrorism in El Salvador!" To which someone like myself might respond, "Well, we could include an opposing viewpoint, a brief discussion, say, of the bureaucratic chain, the political environment in which the acts took place....?" To which someone else might respond: "Nope. Nothing in this article except accusations of State Terrorism." To which i might say "Well, then, how about this legal scholar that talks about the subtleties of the different ways we can interpret the phrase "State Terrorism", and how it applies to the El Salvador case?" To which another might respond "Does it mention the U.S? If not, then no." Until finally, i -- or another -- is reduced to simply presenting the accusation:

"Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______."

Well, once that's put up the next response is "How do you know the U.S. was responsible for that? Give us a source!"

And then it expands: "Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______."

Next, it becomes "Well, prove that what happened actually was Terrorism!"

So next it becomes: "Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______. They performed these acts: _________ __________ __________ ________ and __________."

Then it becomes "How do you know they committed those acts?"

So then it becomes: "Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______ received _____, were ordered by _______, and ________. They performed these acts: _________ __________ __________ ________ and __________."

Next it goes back to the beginning:

"How do you know Person/Group/Government X is reliable in what they claim? Show me more sources!"

And the section grows again.

Do you understand, now, why the page is the way it is?

Therefore, i will once again ask you: start up that sandbox. Show us what your ideas are. We are willing to listen to what you have to say. For my part, however, i am hobbled. Whenever i try to introduce material in that direction it gets deleted. Perhaps your efforts will succeed where mine have failed. I don't know. But i assure you: that is the only way you are going to make any progress on your vision. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sky I promise that if I return for a long-spell I will make proper proposals. My intention has been to put an independent view across, as I have not been involved in the editing of this page before. You understand my general views of the page, which was all I wanted to put foward. If I had specific ideas I would put it across. But my point of simplifying/condensing still stands. It isn't about simple deletion, it's about improving things. On the Japan article we once had a large amount of text that many people considered important. Eventually I took a huge axe to it and said "right, if the only way to get FA status is to cut out whatever I can, that is what I will do". And, as painful as it was to have to pick and choose, it worked out. The article actually looked better and it became FA. If you want something different here, I won't try to stop you. But honestly it is no bad thing to bite on the bullet and press the delete key.

As for reversal of changes you make, be bold - it may not happen this time. However, if it does, go straight to mediation and get a discussion going. If that goes wrong you can always go for arbitration to hit those editors on the head that cause trouble rather than use the talk page. I doubt very much you would come out on the wrong side of things. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

People keep alleging 'POV' and yet do not provide any sources for including 'other points of view' within the article. If you have content from reliable sources that would 'bring more balance' to the article, please provide it. But if there are not any other voices expressing different opinions on the issues covered in the article, it can hardly be considered to violate POV.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

POV problems can be established by people using their common-sense. The lack of any extra immediately accessible contrary views does not mean there is no POV problem. You could argue that you have had difficulty finding opposing information, but that doesn't mean people do not disagree with it. For example, there are various theories about there about global conspiracies. Compare the amount of material out there to "support" it in relation to the amount that says there isn't. A lot of people will simply ignore or laugh at a lot of the ideas that come forward. Similarly here when I've read allegations of "state terrorism" the attitude of the other side is to ignore it, rather than give it credibility by spending time and effort debunking it.

Just because there are not hordes of people out there spending time writing books saying stuff like "the US does not support state terrorism" does not mean there isn't material to use to present the other side. People often write articles in support of US foreign policy. Or one could point out where certain notable organisations do not blame the US and attribute the causes elsewhere. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying it exists. I am just saying: Show me some. Either point out where the current sources have been presented in a POV fashion or where other voices have presented other views that we can include.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, why have a paragraph on Operation Northwoods when it wasn't even approved? This should be about state terrorism that took place, not theoretical plans that were killed off. Governments often consider "unthinkable" plans so that they can consider every option. To flag up something like this is to suggest "oh wow, look at those Yankies plotting horrible stuff". Also how can it be a "secret plan" if we know about it? It seems like tabloid line-grabber to me. If the reference is in regards to whether it was in the public domain, no such policy ideas ever are. Indeed I can't think of many defence-related plans that are ever made public these days.

And why have three quotes right at the end which are all critical of the US, including one from a guy (Chavez) who has himself been accused of crapping on human rights and his own country's constitution? Aren't their less controverial figures to quote? Why give voice to those who are most divisive? Like the Italian Communist Party's drivel about how the US was stopping them coming to power. There is a modest rebuttal, but to bring it up at all is ridiculous. John Smith's (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing some specifics that will allow actual actions to be taken; rather than generalizations that do not allow anyone to attempt to fix your concerns.

If we can jump right to the quotes section, I am not sure that such a section is appropriate for a WP article at all. Would moving the quotes to WikiQuote be something that would be agreeable to editors?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that; i would suggest that a link to wikiquotes would be appropriate, though.

Regarding Operation Northwoods, i must object to John Smith's characterization. The section clearly indicates that the U.S. ran this covert operation for something like thirty or forty years, and that it is suspected of involvement in some of the terrorist actions which took place in places like Italy, Belgium and France. These allegations have been backed up by admissions by the U.S. (later denied, but the admissions still were made) and lots of research by European historians and Government investigations (most notably that undertaken by Italy). That clearly qualifies as reliably sourced evidence of 'State Terror'. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, where does it say in the Northwoods section it did happen? I can only see reference to a plan, not things that happened. Can you highlight the text, please? John Smith's (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find it on your own. The statements i refer to are not hard to find. If you really need a clue then i would suggest you focus on the second or third sentence of the passage first, and then work down -- slowly -- from there.

Further, i find it odd that you are challenging the rhetorical slant of this article but for some reason can't pick apart what appears to me as very simple, direct prose. Or is there another reason why you can't find the statements for yourself? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the bit that starts In 2006, a former board member of CANF then that doesn't directly link to Operation Northwoods. If you are of the opinion it did happen, you need to say that more clearly and source that it was Operation Northwoods rather than something else. If I'm at the wrong bit, as I asked please copy out some of the text. John Smith's (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whups. My mistake. I was confusing Gladio with Northwoods. As it stands, i think Northwoods should be referenced but can be cut down; it shows that high-level officials in the U.S. government were planning to carry out the sorts of actions which are attributed to proxies later on in the section. While official policy may have rejected their suggestions the plan makes it clear that it the motivation, will, and planning already existed and that proxy agents implementing elements of the plan would be welcomed by some elements of the U.S. government.

I am open to pruning it, but remain insistent that any changes be cleared in a sand-box beforehand. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sky, I hope the next time someone asks you to make direct reference you will be more accommodating and less brusque. As for keeping some of the text, I could see a use if there is a piece dealing with hypothetical scenarios. But I don't think it should stand alone. As I said, governments frequently consider unorthodox/controversial tactics simply so that they can say they've considered all the options. The executive calls the shots in the end - "officials" do what they are told. On a separate note I had a look at the Chomsky reference (37) and I can't see that it mentions "Northwoods" anywhere. Could someone please point to the part he refers to it? John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage is relevant because it establishes that, at the highest levels of U.S. government, there existed an established government plan and a large cadre of intelligence and military professionals who supported the use of state terror against the Cuban people and government. Within the context of the remaining evidence it is a significant and powerful observation. While the acts themselves may not have been undertaken, they certainly reflect that the activities and relationships described later in the passage are plausible and have solid precedent.

A good measure to use here would be: would a historian who believed that the U.S. is not guilty of sponsoring state terrorism against the Cuban people find such evidence significant enough to address in their treatment of the subject? The answer to this question is obviously "Yes", and so the material must remain in some form or another.

Once again: if you would like to start a sand-box and show us some ideas then we welcome your contribution. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some changes to the Japan section

I'm going to make some changes to the Japan section. Nothing too major I think, I'll try to cut down some stuff and add in a source I mentioned above that offers a bit of a more balanced point of view. I do agree that this article is a bit long as it is now, but not because it is over 100k, rather there is additional material we probably need to add so it would be useful for us to trim where possible. Also it just does not read well at points which is understandable given the constant battling over content and the numerous editors who have worked on it. I'll try to make some adjustments to the Japan section to improve readability and make it a bit more NPOV. Then I'll come back here and explain what I did and folks can of course object, revert, etc. My goal is to work together to improve one section in a manner that might be duplicated in other sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bigtimepeace. Thanks for your changes and improvements to that section. I agreed with all your changes except the last edit that removed some parts from Zinn and Seldon. I can see how it looked like that might be off topic, but actually I think they are not and important to keep as it is a pivotal conceptual point in understanding the basis of the claims visa vis the bombings as acts of State Terror. Specifically, central to this stance by the authors is the claim that the bombs were not primarily attempts to destroy military targets but rather to make a point, to threaten Russia, to have a psychological effect on a political basis beyond Japan, and target civilians. The quote by Zinn of the sociologist make this point about its non-military use, and Zinn relies on this, and is rather central to his concluding and arguing that the bombings being an instance of State Terror. The quote from Seldon does that same thing (he talks about the "Global balance of Terror.") Another part that I find throughout the literature from this conceptual framework is that the act formed the basis of all subsequent acts of state terror involving bombings, specifically the targeting of civilians; this point is also central to the conception that the act constitutes State terrorism, and its significant for the future is a point that I felt was strong enough in the literature that it merited mention here. Lastly, the long Faulk quote, while it is long, I find it as important for NPOV because he talks about the mainstream justifications for the bombings, and answers it from his perspective. Its a big long but the content is rich and says much, and adds to a nice summation recapping the intro for the section. Also, overall the Japan section is one of the smallest, still, in this article. So, if it is ok with you, I'd like to restore these bits, but the rest is definitely a great improvement. Thanks, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gio, I haven't read through your comment yet but will shortly. Let me finish up what I'm doing (won't take much longer) and then I'll come back and summarize and engage with your points.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks, BTP. And, you have some very good changes to the section, btw.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's done (pardon the length of the comment to follow). I made several edits obviously and tried to use good edit summaries so folks can easily see what was changed and how significant the changes were. First I'll make a general comment and address Giovanni's points and then mention a couple of other things and hopefully we can come to consensus here.

In making some deletions I was seeking to make this section more readable and concise, and also remove material which (while not at all fully off topic) was relatively tangential to the state terrorism issue. I would first point out that while I cut some things we still have six sources (very good sources for the most part) which accuse the US of state terrorism in this instance. That is more than sufficient I think. Because of challenges in the past there was an (understandable) effort to lard this article with sources. I think we now need to think about cutting down some stuff that duplicates arguments unnecessarily or which is a bit off topic (often times stretching into more general criticisms). Likewise lengthy quotes need to be distilled down to their essence - this is just required for Wikipedia or for academic writing. Historians must always resist the temptation to "fall in love with their sources" and I think the same applies here. A lot of the editors here are quite loquacious (myself included!...exhibit A, this comment!) and we really need to check that impulse. There are all kinds of places where this article can be tightened up and at times that may require us to ditch some sources that are cool but not really necessary.

But on to your points Giovanni. The Kai Erikson quote simply does not accuse the US of state terrorism, and I don't think it adds needed background that has not already been mentioned earlier. The second paragraph already deals with the issue of the targeting of civilians for psychological effect. We could elaborate on the point in that paragraph (maybe add a fragment from Erikson back up there) but I don't think repeating it later is necessary. Also, as evidenced by the "revisionist" school (which I brought in during a recent edit) one can see the bombing as an immoral action done for psychological effect and not view it as state terrorism. I think Erikson's quote (which is second hand anyway) should stay out or be shortened and dropped into the second paragraph at some point.

Similarly I cut part of what Seldon was saying because it simply did not deal with state terrorism. It actually did not really deal with Japan and WWII either but rather with latter aerial bombardments in Asia. As such I think it does not belong here.

Falk's quote has always been too long and a number of people have mentioned this I think. I trimmed it so it dealt only with the state terror accusations. What I cut dealt with US public justification for the attacks (which I don't think we should deal with, it's not really relevant) and a second hand quote from Walzer (already quoted in the section) arguing for diplomacy with which Falk agreed. Again, not really directly relevant.

I don't think any of these passages particularly improve the argument, and arguably I think they distract from it. Remember, readers will come across a long block quote like Falk's and their eyes will glaze over. We should strive to keep the punchiest parts and ditch the rest. I would ask Giovanni and others to consider how important it really is to keep in these relatively tangential sources, and if the readability is not improved as a result of some pruning.

Finally, I added a paragraph toward the end along the lines of something I'd mentioned in an earlier talk page section. One of the valid points from the deletionist camp in the past is that it is hard to find sources that respond to directly to these accusations. This is quite true I think (and those that do respond, such as David Horowitz, are often shoddy sources). So we need to be a bit creative about how we bring in the "oppose" arguments. The way I tried to do it here is by making the point that most historical scholarship on the a-bomb in Japan does not even address the issue of whether or not this is state terrorism. This is undoubtedly true, I think most of you would agree, and is very much worth pointing out. Like it or not, the "a-bomb was state terror" view is clearly a minority one within the scholarship. Simply pointing out this fact strikes me as a useful way to bring in an opposing view, given that there are probably very few sources which bother to say "Richard Falk was wrong when he called this state terrorism."

Wait, I lied about finally. I also changed all of the cites to inline citations. This is something we should work on in general. Formatting cites is annoying, but for anyone who did not know there is a neat tool that helps you do this here. It speeds up the process quite a bit.

Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We have agreement about the goal of readability, etc, and agree about your main changes for NPOV. Well done. However, we still disagree on some other matters, so, I'd like other editors to consider both these positions.

I think that by removing some of the rich background material that is central to the arguments by the various historians used, unintentionally makes it a less interesting section, and thus harder--not easier--to read. So my argument for including the larger quotes is two fold: content and readability, which compliment each other. This is because introducing the conceptual basis for the authors main arguments in this way, makes the point stand out, and thus makes it easier to follow and read as it breaks up the text in the page into easier to see blocks, not just all short sentences. Otherwise, I see too many short sentences all beginning with "Historian Howard Zinn writes..."; "Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady, writes...";Mark Selden, professor, etc writes..."..."Richard Falk, professor, writes..."--and they all say pretty much the same thing. This makes it, in my view, a little boring, and lacking in some rich contextual thought that is central to their outlooks. By adding back at least one of the quotes (below), I think we also have better overall form and structure for the section. For example, consider the introduction statement, that you mention. You are right you leave in the important "most of the arguments that label the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki state terrorism center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal," in the intro, but herein lies the rich heart of the pov, and instead of just saying this once in the intro, why not allow these scholars to voice this POV more fully, to wrap up the section, by repeating the main thesis/intro? I think it does add value, understanding of the subject, but also makes for more interesting reading, and thus easier to read. I don't agree that the longer quote causes a readers eyes to glaze over. On the contrary, several choppy sentences not really saying anything new, arguably, does this. With the quotes, we get to hear the source himself speak, and it is gripping. So the disagreement here to be settled is that is it distracting from the main argument and subject? As a compromise, how about if I say leave the Professor Selden quote about, that talks about the "over the next half century...beginning in Japan..." I can agree this one not too relevant, as it is more arial bombardments in Asia. So this quote and stay out. However, I think the quote by sociologist Kai Erikson, that Howard Zinn grasps on to in his writing on the subject is at the heart of the issue and speaks with passion on the subject (which is why Zinn uses it to support his argument), and this is directly relevant to the issue. The quote is:

“

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?

”

I feel this moral indictment makes a powerful point and is at the heart of the POV we are trying to represent here, and why Zinn quotes him. The other longer quote you feel is simply too long, I'm also willing to compromise on, and leave it to the shortened version you have left. However, I would prefer the longer version for the same reasons I explained above as it provides a great amount of contextual thought and background information about the arguments, and thus enriches the section/subject on it.

But regardless, bravo, on your other changes (most of them) that you have made. I'm sure we can reach a compromise here, with a re-inclusion of the Erikson quote that Zinn uses for his argument. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There was one other change that I'd like to see. I think the word "revisionist" and "traditionalist" is over used. We should introduce the term and using it once I think is adequate (maybe link to some article on it as a reader might confuse this legitimate type of revisionist school (used in academia), with the illegitimate "revisionists" that actually is more in the popular/lay language but carries different and pejorative meaning.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think BigT did a very nice job. However what I think is different and interesting about the Kai Erikson quote is that it is not just a statement, it contains a very provocative rhetorical moral question that prompts us to think about the psychologies that war and conflict produce. I think it is an asset.BernardL (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Bernard, but the following addresses his point too) Taking your last point first Giovanni, I'm not sure if you are saying that the revisionist/traditionalist labels are overused in general in our discourse or just in the article. I'm guessing the former. These terms can be confusing but they are the exact terms used within the a-bomb historiography (I'm drawing the terms from the Walker article I cited - it's definitely the dominant terminology). What's confusing generally is that the terms are used differently in different fields. So when it comes to Hiroshima "revisionists" are critics of American foreign policy (this label is also often applied more generally to the school of diplomatic history associated with William Appleman Williams and his students). But in discussing Vietnam the "revisionists" are those who defend the war and blame Congress for bailing out since the "traditional" view among scholars (for now and probably for quite some time) is that the war was a disaster. I did explain the distinction for the purposes of the drop-the-bomb debate but we could tweak the wording. I don't really see how we can use other terms and don't think we should explain that the terms mean different things in different fields so long as readers understand what the term means for the Japan a-bomb debate.

As to the Erikson quote, what if we put a slightly shortened version at the end of the second paragraph of the section? We could adjust the wording there a bit to transition perhaps, but I think this passage

"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration."

would be useful at the end of that paragraph as a specific example of what that paragraph is talking about more generally - i.e. that critics who accuse the US of state terrorism usually base this on the argument that the attacks were not necessary and were intended to make a point. Then what would follow would be several paragraphs of specific accusations about state terrorism (running the Zinn and Walzer quotes together was good as were a couple of other efforts to consolidate paragraphs). I just don't think the Erikson quote belongs amidst specific accusations of state terrorism but I'm fine with it earlier. Would that work?

Finally specifically to Giovanni and on a more trivial level, would you be willing to do without the italics? I think they are distracting and in terms of manual-of-style issues WP:ITALICS specifically notes that "italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly." I think it can often be useful to italicize particular words but not whole sentences (which is why I'd removed them before) so I'm wondering if you'd mind not italicizing whole phrases as a general rule. I think the importance of individual quotes will be evident even without them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi BTP, yes, I'm ok with taking out the italics. I'm also ok with your idea of where to place the Erikson quote, however, I agree with Bernard that the provocative moral rhetorical question he asks is worthy of inclusion as it forces the reader to confront the issue in a way that I think is very effective. This makes the text interesting, and it does encapsulate the thinking of those who espouse this perspective. I'ts significant that Zinn gives him a full voice on the question as a way to argue that it was an act of state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll leave in the last sentence on the moral issue and just try to uses ellipses to cut the quote length a bit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that? Feel free to tweak it a bit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. Much better. I like how it transitions directly into Zinn.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I liked the changes, too, but i, also, am sensitive to the word "revisionist". That is a political term introduced into the mainstream and employed primarily by conservative political activists. In point of fact, the practice of history is fundamentally "revisionist", and so-called "traditionalist" interpretations are rarely as traditional or unquestioned as those who use the word "revisionist" would have us believe. On that basis i re-worded the final paragraph to maintain NPOV; beyond that, the other changes i made were virtually all cosmetic -- spelling, grammar, condensation of wording, and so on. If anything is objectionable please feel free to change it back. I tried to keep the changes as inconspicuous as possible. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of your changes seem fine after a quick glance, but when I get a chance later today I do plan to go back and re-add the term "revisionist." This is actually the most NPOV term we can use for the group of scholars who think the atom bomb decision was wrong. It is even used by a number of scholars who hold that view. Your description of revisionism as a term "employed primarily by conservative political activists" is simply not accurate. Yes, certainly that is sometimes the case, but it is a complex term that is actually employed in many different ways (a number of historians would cheerfully call themselves "revisionists" on a number of questions - it really is not such a dirty word in many subfields of history). On the a-bomb question, the two camps are referred to as "traditional" and "revisionist" by scholars in the debate - not by conservative activists. We may not like this but it is a simple fact (I can send you the J. Samuel Walker article as an example of scholarship which employs these terms). Your change in the first sentence of the last paragraph led to the wording "the argument remains hotly contested albeit by a minority of proponents" (substituting the italicized phrase for revisionist). Revisionists are not necessarily in the "minority" on this question (though they probably are slightly) and the point of that sentence was that the debate is still hotly contested by both sides, so you quite altered the meaning there. And remember, when I am saying "revisionist" I am referring to all people who argue the decision to drop the bomb was wrong, even if they did not label it state terrorism. Those are two distinct but overlapping groups. I know people have a knee -jerk reaction to the term "revisionist" for good reason, but I think this really is the proper term for scholars opposed to Truman's decision, just as it also the proper term (though it may seem odd) for historians who think the Vietnam war was a good thing. We can't change the language just because a word has some baggage attached to it when the term in question is really the one most often used to describe a given group.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your argument, but even so it seems to me that use of the term "revisionist" brings with it enough baggage that we should be worried about it introducing POV skew. While historians often do refer to their own work as "revisionist", it is typically only within strictly defined fields of study, and only with reference to that particular field. Use of the term on this page, however, is not so clearly contextualized; you yourself hint at this when you say that it is "employed in many different ways". I suggest that this is a general discussion of a specialized debate, and while i would have no problem using this word with professional historians i do think that this page should restrict itself to common terminology. In mainstream media and general commentary, "revisionist" has taken on a distinctly nasty set of connotations and is used by many conservative commentators as a blanket condemnation. I am happy with you re-wording my proposed changes, and will of course submit to the general consensus on this. I do, however, think that it should be an easy thing for us to maintain the content without use of that particular word, and hope that we will find a way to do so. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather split on the matter of the term "revisionist". Sky and BigT have good points. It is a term that can be used properly but does often influence people in a negative fashion. I wouldn't say that someone who criticises the bombings generally is revisionist, but labelling it state terrorism might be. I can't really say either way whether the term should definitely be used. Is there a substitute? John Smith's (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BigtimePeace is, of course, correct about the academic meaning of the term, and has used it correctly. However, I an sensitive to Stone put to sky's concerns. To a lay, average reader, the term carries baggage and can be misconstrued for the more pejorative meaning that is carries in other contexts; we can see from JohnSmith's comments, he wants to make his own definition (applying it only to those who call it state terrorism). I think a compromise would be to mention this term, explaining it as BTP has done (as this is an encylopedia and it should be sophisticated), but trim down its use to that one mention, substituting subsequent usages with other terms such as "critics of the bombing...". I agree the term "minority" should be changed (as I'm not sure a majority of historians hold the bombing as justified--and the terms revisionist and traditionalist does not refer to this either ).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reason for removing the term "minority" is not logical. The academic community is not divided between those who think the bombings were state terrorism and those that think it was justified - ergo saying the former is a minority does not mean the latter is a majority. Someone may not think the bombings were especially justified but equally may not regard them as state terrorism. So I think "minority" is a term that can be used.

Furthermore, please stop misrepresenting what I have said - you make a bad habit of it. I did not say the term "revisionist" should be applied to those that called the bombings state terrorism, only that it might be appropriate - but I couldn't make my mind up one way or the other. Why are you incapable of repeating anything I say correctly? Or do this deliberately in the belief you can undermine what I want to say? John Smith's (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec with John's last comment) To John above, I really don't think there is a substitute. Again, this is the actual term used by scholars to describe historians who criticize the bombings (not historians who say it was state terrorism - the term is used far more broadly). They are generally called "revisionists" within this sub-field of diplomatic history - this is simply a fact. I did not use the term idly, and while I'm aware of other connotations I think we need to use the proper terminology here. See this google search on the terms "revisionist" "traditional" and "Hiroshima." There are 33,000 hits with nearly all on the first page being relevant. Also this well known book (from a traditionalist) incorporates revisionism directly into the title (which is not to say that it is only a negative appellation applied by traditionalists to their foes - it is not). Traditional vs. revisionist is also the paradigm used in the review article by J. Samuel Walker I referenced (I know of no other comparable review article on the scholarly literature in the last few years - as such it is probably just about the best source to tell us what terminology to use). In sum the preponderance of the evidence suggests that "traditional" and "revisionist" are the terms generally employed by scholars who debate the bombing. I don't see any way around this unless someone has evidence to the contrary.

What would be POV on our part would be to not use revisionist and instead to make up some other term for it (that would also probably constitute original research). I'm very open to crafting a better explanation of the distinction between traditional and revisionist with perhaps a footnote explaining how those terms are used in different ways in other fields (consider that my formal proposal for how to address this issue), but if we are going to have a paragraph on the dominant historiography we should explain what the two broad camps are within that historiography and use the terms for those camps that are actually used by scholars in the debate. I don't see anyone questioning that those are in fact the terms used, and I'm not at all convinced that we should sacrifice terminological accuracy on the concern that some might misunderstand who the "traditionalists" and "revisionists" are and what those terms mean. The solution is to explain them precisely and point out the limited context in which they are being used so there is no confusion. My previous wording probably did not achieve that but I think it would be fairly easy to work that out.

I'm also amenable, as Giovanni just suggested while I was writing the above, to using synonyms for revisionist once the term is properly introduced. I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning it more than once, but if it makes stylistic sense to use a phrase like "critics of the bombing" as a substitution once or twice I think that's fine. Honestly though I think it matters far more that we explain what the terms means in a clear fashion at the outset than it does how often we repeat it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make the changes then, and see if it is likewise acceptable to the other editors. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

John and Gio, please both make an effort to keep your prior disagreements and difficulties off the table here. It really does not help. To John on the "minority" term, I think there was just a misunderstanding there. The "state terrorism" advocates are indeed in the minority and I don't think anyone disputes it. The problem is that the current version as revised by Stone suggests that mere critics of the bombing are in the minority in the scholarship. I'm guessing that this is technically true as of today, but it's probably fairly evenly split between traditionalists and revisionists so we do not want to characterize the latter as the "minority" (even if its a 55-45 or 60-40 thing - and no one has quantified this - it would be misleading). I think Giovanni was referring to applying "minority" to the larger group of critics and that I agree would be a mistake as I said above. The whole point of the paragraph on the scholarship is obviously to show that the "state terror" argument is a minority one, though it seemed unnecessary to state that directly given the way the paragraph is worded.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace correctly understood what I was saying, and John, apparently did not, but I'm not going to accuse him of purposely altering my meaning. Likewise, I would think it would be helpful in the future if JohnSmiths would assume good faith in my comments/edits, as well. Jumping to this bad faith assumption (and I quote you): "Why are you incapable of repeating anything I say correctly? Or do this deliberately in the belief you can undermine what I want to say?" is a prime example of not assuming good faith. Please stop it. I won't bite this time, in deference to the point BTP has raised, which is quite valid and needed here, so lets stick on actual article content and not editor motivations. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, do you deny that you misinterpreted my comments on the use of "revisionist"? I have clearly explained how you were wrong in your assertion. If you did not mean to do that, the least you could do is acknowledge your mistake. You do have a past of misrepresenting what I say, and I cannot remember the last time you said you made an error in reiterating my views. You claim I do not show good faith, but you ran off to the admins' board with a complaint of wikistalking (which no one has backed you up on). So I would like to see you practice what you preach. John Smith's (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not make a mistake. You clearly said that the term revisionist could apply to the state terrorism charge but not those who are opposed to the bombings in general. So this is an invention by you of a new user/meaning of the terms and as such is OR as that term has nothing to do with specific reasons for opposing the bombings. Therefore I stand behind that comment. I did not, nor never have, misrepresented what you have said, at least not intentionally--so you should strike those comments above that say that I do. As far as history, it is something you have a history of doing with respect to the facts of a situation. As far as reporting you, don't be hypocritical. That is what you are doing now, with your latest accusations to an admin. Perhaps you should practice what you preach? Also, this is again off topic to this article so I suggest you drop the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes re the terms revisionist as we talked about here, putting in a compromise with the use of the term to introduce the term and how its used, but then avoiding its use, preferring substitute terms that make the text clear to a lay reader. Please review and comment, if this compromise works for both Bigtimepeace, and sufficiently satisfies the concerns raised by Stone In The Sky (and myself). Feel free to make tweaks/changes as you see fit. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for the sincere debate over the issues i raised. Personally, i'm not convinced the solution is the best. Thought i'd mention that, of the arguments given, i found the "Analysis via Google" most persuasive. That said, i'm content to accept things as they are Thanks again. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

In this section [[9]], the paragraph starting "Chomsky has in turn been criticized for allegedly ignoring or justifying terrorism by other nations..." while cited, does not seem to deal directly with the topic at hand about the allegations against the US or about Chomsky's arguements that the US commits acts that match its definition of terrorism. As written, these 'Chomsky has been criticized' statements seem no more than a general 'attack the messanger' policy. The article used as a source shows that Chomsky has been in error about actions of other governments, but does not address any of Chomsky's claims about US actions of 'terrorism'. This section should be removed, or re-written with sources that more directly address the specific topic at hand.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On second read, the source does say that Chomsky is wrong about claims of US terrorism from Clinton's bombing of the pharmacutical plant. But still, the paragraph needs cleaning up.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely; that entire paragraph is utterly unrelated to the section's topic (as laid out by the title). I think it can just be deleted outright. In addition, the "Criticisms..." section has a tremendous amount of fluff in it, most of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. I have made suggestions for how to clean it up, but unfortunately it was during a time when people were busy with the shenanigans of a cabal that has been recently exposed and so they got lost in the mix. Do you have any specific suggestions? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that whole section--and indeed most of the article--is a disaster. The section being discussed--headed "US government's own definitions"--is nothing more than an impoverished debate between a Chomsky quotation and some random thoughts from Keith Windschuttle. What's the relation to the section heading? For your average reader it's slim or none or something similar. TheRedPenOfDoom seems ready and able to help improve the article, but until there is some serious collaboration among folks with very different political views I don't see this thing moving forward anytime soon.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't have me to blame for that. I've been disgusted with the direction this thing took ever since that Tom Harrison/Mongo/Morton Devonshire/Nuclearumpf/TDC cabal came in and started strongarming things, here. Yes, it's a mess. But it has been necessary to keep this particular mess because otherwise that cabal would have simply deleted everything.

FYI: it's now possible to openly discuss their cooperation because one of them came out a while back and admitted his participation, even going so far as to explain their modus operandi.

So -- the page was perverted by them. I have no doubt, however, that as soon as conscientious editors here try to work it back into something acceptable that the group will be back again, in full force. While Devonshire and MONGO appear to be gone, Harrison is still around and -- if i read the Nuclearumpf/six of diamonds/seven of diamonds/zerofaults/??? correctly -- he is the actual originator of the whole thing.

But i might be wrong. That might be an improper interpretation. I'm not trying to slander Harrison; it's just that the admission in question and some quotes by that poster on another website seemed to imply that was the case.

Even so, if you have some suggestions then feel free. I would love to tighten this thing up, but as it is i have no idea where to start (and not much time to do it, either). Stone put to sky (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am here to help. I have an idea of where to start and have the time. May we work together to accomplish your goals here? Raggz (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the agreement here, I have re-worked some of this section to collect similar concepts into groups and create a more logical flow. I have not removed any cited material. What exactly to do with the Chomsky/Windschuttle material is still up for debate, but it may be easier to see what / how to fix it in a new environment. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-working of information

{FBI definition of terrorism}

{State department definition of terrorism}

After President George W. Bush began using the term "War on Terrorism", Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, stated in an interview:

“

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare"... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same.^[4]

”

Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the US government and their proxies in their execution of US foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state." ^[4] Keith Windschuttle accuses Chomsky of using evidence that was "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented" ^[5] within the works Chomsky has written on this topic.

alternate proposed by Raggz

Chomsky should get a sentence, maybe two. He is not the topic.

{FBI definition of terrorism}

{State department definition of terrorism}

{Chomsky definition of terrorism}

{Cuban definition of terrorism} Raggz (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

comments?

Does anyone have comments about the revision proposed above? It keeps a tighter focus on applying US definitions of terrorism to US actions and applies the criticism to this specific topic as well. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky should be included, he has interesting insights. All that I ask is that this (and other) sections pay close attention to what is meant bystate terrorism, a summary of Chomsky's definition. Raggz (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, did you have a definition from the Cuban govt. that you would like to use in the above section per your proposal? Is there are particular reason that you think the Cuban definition should should be included in the section "US definition of terrorism"? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Raggz has provided no rationale for including Cuba's definition of terrorism in the section on US definitions, I have moved the above section into the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While I do not object to Chomsky's definition, it should be a topic: ie, Illegal war as state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sources quoted for Cuba, you will see that the allegations all relate to two topics. (1) the Cold War (which could be a topic) and (2) the refusal of the US to extradite probable terrorists to Venezuela. We need a section on State terrorism by the US Immigration and extradition policy. Raggz (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "immigration and extradition policy": if you would like to provide that source then please, feel free.

Regarding your other claims: these are all specious. The Cuba section has quite a long list of sources that are quoted on record saying that U.S. policies against Cuba qualify as State Terror. Whether it occurred during the cold war or not is beside the point. The consensus on this point is that you have yet to back up your claims on this point with any valid reference to either the article or Wikipolicy, and so the editors on this page now consider that the case on this point has been closed.

The material shall remain. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We can add President Bush's definition of terrorism "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." and "if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists" if you would like, Raggz, to clearly tie the topics together. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

or from the CIA, which states, "The states that choose to harbor terrorists are like accomplices who provide shelter for criminals. They will be held accountable for the actions of their “guests.” [10] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily related to the Cuba issue is this from the state department: "State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons, materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other destabilizing technologies that could get into the hands of terrorists." [11] Which answers some of the 'related'-ness issues that have been brought up in the Phillipines discussion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

^ "Review of Department Identified Contracts and Grants for Public Relations Services" (PDF). United States Department of Education: Office of Inspector General.
^ "Cubanews From radio Havana Cuba". Radio Habana Cuba.
^ "Scams and scandals among Miami terrorists". Cuba State News: Granma Internacional Digital.
^ ^a ^b Barsamian, David (November 6, 2001). "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State". Monthly Review. Retrieved 2007-07-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Windschuttle, Keith. "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky", The New Criterion, May 9 2003

[1] "Review of Department Identified Contracts and Grants for Public Relations Services" (PDF). United States Department of Education: Office of Inspector General.

[2] "Cubanews From radio Havana Cuba". Radio Habana Cuba.

[3] "Scams and scandals among Miami terrorists". Cuba State News: Granma Internacional Digital.

[barsamian-4] Barsamian, David (November 6, 2001). "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State". Monthly Review. Retrieved 2007-07-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] Windschuttle, Keith. "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky", The New Criterion, May 9 2003

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Questionable Reliable Sources

References from the first sentence

More

tags

State terrorism - defined

Inaccurate Citations

Cuban American National Foundation

CANF

Asia Times Online

NY Times

Brinkley, Joel (2004 June 9). "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks".

BBC

Four New Sources (Whups!)

Four New Useless Sources

Vandalism reverted

RFC

Cuba Statement to the United Nations 2001 since the Cuban revolution

Lack of connection between Cuban allegations and the US

Citation Request by RedPenofDoom

New Reference for state-sponsored terrorism by US against Cuba from peer-reviewed journal

US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism

Order of content

Operation Northwoods

Sean O'Brien

jtrainer didn't get edit passed

Confusion

I would simply like to say...

Sandbox Issues

Is this article is a POV Fork

Does this article comply with NPOV?

Is there a consensus opposing compliance with WP policies?

IGNORE ALL RULES WP:IAR

Does this article fail to comply with NPOV because it is a POV Fork?

What should be done about the lack of compliance with NPOV policy?

I've posted this page at the WP:RS noticeboard

Renaming the article

Tags

Please allow me to say that again

Peer review requested

Finally, one more VERY IMPORTANT POINT regarding Page Length

Regarding Accusations of POV

Some changes to the Japan section

Chomsky

Proposed re-working of information

alternate proposed by Raggz

comments?