Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 24 April 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 15 April 2008, see discussion. Speedy Keep, December 17, 2007, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), June 25, 2007, see discussion. Keep, March 30, 2007, see discussion. Speedy Keep, January 11, 2007, see discussion. Keep, December 12, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), August 9, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), November 25, 2005, see discussion.

Template:AbUS

Philippines background

See . Why is there an extremely long section not mentioning the US at all? All of this material should be, and already is, in the Human rights in the Philippines‎ article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Style point - references

Does anyone object to "shortening"/"compacting" the references so that they take up less space? For example:

cite web
|url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html
|title=18 U.S.C. § 2331
|publisher=Cornell Law School
|accessdate=2007-05-25

would become

cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html%7Ctitle=18 U.S.C. § 2331|publisher=Cornell Law School|accessdate=2007-05-25

It's a small point, but would make it easier for people to read through when trying to edit. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to ask. Eliminating unused parameters and formatting horizontally is perfectly acceptable and is helpful, as you pointed out. It's even one of the examples on the template page. — Becksguy (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador background section

All of this information is already in Salvadoran Civil War. No need to repeat here. Does not discuss the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire section should go into SCW, leaving just a para behind William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Current text is fine.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be - I'm not particular. I should have said that the para I've left is the intro para to the SCW article, and as a general principle thats often a good way to picking linking paras. It can be a way to defuse argument (or move it elsewhere :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Refocus proposal

This article is currently the text for an article called "List of state terrorism committed by the US" (see, I didn't say alleged - I told you I liked Chomsky). This is an all-too-easy thing to write, and of course you can find piles of stuff thats easy for find RS for. It really needs to become the text of an article that actually puts some hard work into analysing the claims and counter claims and attempts to put the whole thing into some kind of perspective and balance William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer an article called "Criticisms of United States foreign policy" or something similar. That would be easy to find many good sources for. By including "state terrorism" one eliminates the more serious sources since the term has not agreed on definition. Those who use it are often sensationalists. Not more serious scholars. Also cannot discuss, for example, the embargo against Cuba, low foreign aid as percentage of GDP, and opposition to various treaties.

But if there should be an article about US state terrorism, then I think the sources must clearly accuse the US of this. Otherwise we will have endless reverts between those who personally think that something is "state terrorism" and others who do not.Ultramarine (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's barmy there is this article but nothing on Criticism of US foreign policy, when really that can cover this and more. Indeed by removing the "state terrorism" label makes it easier, not more difficult, to evaluate criticisms. John Smith's (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be another aticle, not this one. This one is for State Terrorism.Supergreenred (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if we have one, then the sources must accuse the US of "state terrorism". Not "I as an anonymous editor think that this source is in fact describing US state terrorism even if this is not mentioned".Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of where "I as an anonymous editor think that this source is in fact describing US state terrorism even if this is not mentioned"? Every incident in the article is based on at least one source identifying the incident as an act of terrorism directly related to US/US sponsorship. Please do not attempt to re-make the article using baseless statements as your reasoning. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article on state terrorism. I think that the term is too specific to warrant an article solely on what might be called US State terrorism - which is why I think it would be better to have an entry on a page with a wider scope. John Smith's (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We are currently seeing one widening of scope failing. Let's not undertake one more. Start a new article on criticism of US foreign policy, if you like; there's no need to bury this article to do that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be a good idea. Then the non-"state terrorism" critique could be moved there without accusations of being deleted from Misplaced Pages. How about an article called "Debate over United States foreign policy"? Like Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely a notable subject and that title seems appropriate. Note that there is already a lengthy section on it here: United_States_foreign_policy#Criticisms, which could form the basis of a new article and then be summarised with a link. --Ryan Paddy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of United States foreign policy is another article. This article is allegations of state terrorism by the US. Although there is, obviously, overlap. No one, including the United Nations, the US (and it's agencies), other countries, organizations (NGOs), and expert individuals can agree on the definition of terrorism. A US Army study came up with 109 definitions. How are we here supposed to agree on the definition of terrorism by state actors in a very contentious, politicized, and emotionally sensitive subject, with forces puling the article in different directions. It's a definitional nightmare. See State terrorism. It's a bit like obscenity, in that a Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, couldn't define it, but said: "I know it when I see it." — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletions

I have a problem with the massive deletions. I understand that the intentions are good here, and I agree with the goals of trimming and creating articles for each section to get into great depth, as discussed by other editors. However, that has not been done. What has been done is a very large deletions of many sections, with that information not being properly and carefully carried over to other main articles. Also, nothing was left here except the header. Lastly, there has not been discussion about what to move and what to leave. So these massive changes were done without adequate discussion and consensus. What is the rush? I am also concered that admins who are using their admin powers to protect the article and unprotect are editing the article and making changes they see fit. These two things should not be mixed. Admin powers and content disputes they are inovlved in don't go together. I will restore these mass deletions but will be happy to work towards doing this properly.Supergreenred (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Were discussed above.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Supergreen, you say you were a long time IP editor. Would you mind disclosing that IP (or IPs) to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry? We've had problems with that before here.

As for the admins, I'm not sure how they have been using their admin powers inappropriately. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not, not sufficent time for discussion or consensus. Not even a day! This is wholey inadquate. Again, what is the rush? Regarding admin powers, its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. That is not allowed. Since these admins are involved now in content disputes here they should abstain from using any admin powers on this article. Regarding my IP, its changes. Its dynamic, and I edit from many places. I decided finally to start editing with an account. No sock puppets here. Please assume good faith.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, which is why I asked you to tell us some more about yourself. You jumped in on a dispute very suddenly - indeed as soon as you created your account by reporting someone for 3RR. That was strange, which is why I wanted to hear your story. John Smith's (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonymous editors usually do not reveal their IP addresses, for privacy reasons. Please continue to assume good faith. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Before major changes are made I'd like to hear from some of the long term editors who have worked a lot on this article such as BernardL, Miraflores, Stone, RedPen, and Giovanni33.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary action is sometimes needed. As to the deletions: as I said, there is nothing wrong with re-editing the linking paras left. I may well not have chosen all that carefully. Just don't re-insert vast swathes of material that we all agree (I think) really belongs in daughter articles. Carrying stuff across: fair comment. Someone should do it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No arbitrary action here is needed. Lets work with long term editors and use consentual editing practices. Yes, you did not do that carefully, either. Lets talk about what part needs to be moved to daughter articles and then agree before taking the action.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's important to work with all editors, not just long-term ones. John Smith's (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have any concrete arguments, then please add them to the sections above were this was discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked SGR for 24h for tendentious editing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to report him for 3RR vio, but I guess that's not required now. John Smith's (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention was required because this article had become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is against policy.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think this edit

As an expert on the subject, BernardL, can list for us every source that was deleted that actually makes the accusation of "state terrorism" against the United States, in those words? Not accusations that you think amount to state terrorism, because that's original research. I promise I will personally restore every one that you can list. - Merzbow (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I too feel the need to express concern that the admin who locked the article proceeded to make unilateral edits without prior prior discussion. Such actions would appear to be contrary to Misplaced Pages's spirit of Concensus. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy stipulation that sources must use identical terminology. The baseline criteria is direct relation and not identical phrasing. There is no reputable encyclopedia article that rigidly constrains its discussion of a topic exclusively to those who use the words in the title of the article. This kind of absurdity can only be found in the more ideologically perverted realms of wikipedia. Of the material that was deleted I think at least that which originates from the following sources is uncontroversially directly related to the subject matter: Frederick Gareau, William Blum, Clara Nieto, Greg Grandin, Noam Chomsky, Stephen G. Rabe, Patrice MacSherry, Michael McClintock and Robert White. I would argue that the HRW too is directly related since they describe systematic terror committed by the Guatemalan government and assign the U.S. a significant responsibility in a section called the U.S. role. I would further like to state that if it is against Misplaced Pages spirit and policy for regular rank and file editors to indiscriminately remove topical, reliably sourced material, what should we think of an admin who does the same (indiscriminately removes topical, reliably sourced material) and then admits to being indiscriminate. This is quite revealing of current wikipedia culture.BernardL (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to comply with the above request. If the material does not accuse the US of 'state terrorism', then it is a WP:SYNT violation to say that it does. Jtrainor (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BernardL - the comment on that edit is "things which have sub-articles should only have a brief summary here". That does not state that the new brief summaries are perfect, they doubtless need improvement. They are a starting point, and we still have the old text in the edit history to use to improve them. We should strive to ensure that the brief summaries adequately represent all the accusations of terrorism against the US, but not in the fine detail that was present previously. They should be brief. Many of the references that you are sorry to see gone could still be useful at the end of succint generic statements that quickly summarise the positions. In many cases simple statements in the summary can probably be followed by several references that support them (and supporting quotes can be given inside the reference, so that they appear at the bottom of the page with the reference rather than in the main text). That's an approach that will suit here, not hugely detailed descriptions of the arguments about state terrorism in the US. Summaries, not fine detail. Somewhat more detailed discussions can be moved to articles dedicated to each subject, allowing re-use of even more of the contents. Look on this WP:BOLD edit as the start of a process, not the final product.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, so now we have a 1RR edit war instead of a 3RR edit war. Either way it leaves no room for constructive editing.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that RF has been indef-blocked as disruptive SPA William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems wrong esp. since the blocking admin is in a content dispute with that editor. I don't see him as being disruptive at all. I doubt that block will withstand review, just as your block of Superredgreen did not, either.76.102.72.153 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles?

As a late-comer to this discussion, but sometime observer of this page (and, at one time, a minor character in editing the article), I would like to make a suggestion regarding the recent deletions of material. Mr. Connolley has suggested that material which can be put into a sub-article should be deleted. That is a bit of a hardline interpretation, which I do not believe is supported by policy. May I suggest actually creating the sub-articles so that the deletions will be less objectionable? The text remaining here can then employ summary style. This is, of course, what is normally done when an article becomes too long: it is split into multiple subarticles. I have never heard of an article being hobbled because of potential sub-articles. Having seen Guy and Connolley's vision of the article, it is definitely more streamlined for an encyclopedia, so I do think content should be forked off for this vision to be properly carried out. silly rabbit (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already subarticles for the removed material. For example, the very long section on human rights in the Philippines is already in Human rights in the Philippines, the long background section on the civil war in El Salvador is already in Salvadoran Civil War, and so on.Ultramarine (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly I noticed that some material apparently germane to the topic of the article had been removed from the section on Nicaragua. Some allegations of terrorism, including the very clear one made by Chomsky, were deleted. Should this section be moved to an article like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in Nicaragua? I don't know. I do take your point about the long background sections, but I also think that the deletions went too far. Perhaps if this were done incrementally, with full disclosure on the talk page, it might engender more support for the revision. silly rabbit (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Material was added without any such discussion. There have been discussion on these background section with no opposition raised in many cases. If all the background material not mentioning the US and the OR and SYN material criticizing the US but not for "state terrorism" was removed, then this would be a short article. See .Ultramarine (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, am I correct that you are talking only about the "Background" sections here? silly rabbit (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Many of the criticisms do not accuse the US of "state terrorism". Like all the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch material. This is not a general US criticism article. Please see .Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I think at least that some of the Nicaragua material was deleted in error then. There is here a clear statement by Chomsky accusing the US of State terrorism. Furthermore, in the Salon article, Chomsky reads the ICJ ruling as an indictment of US actions as state terrorism or sponsorship of state terrorism. Perhaps this part at least should be restored? I will have to look at the rest of it, but again, if this could be at least done incrementally, with discussion of the merits of each deletion, I think the process would go more smoothly. silly rabbit (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A clear accusation of state terrorism should probably be mentioned. Although I find Chomsky's interpretation strange since there is no concept of "state terrorism" in international law, nor was there any mention of terrorism in the verdict, and finally the Court explicitly found that the US lacked sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for possible human rights violations done by them.Ultramarine (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This and other recent edits have you once again treading very close to the line of arguement that 'there is no definition of terrorism and so anything can be called terrorism' - at which point I have no reason to believe that your presence here is in any way dedicated to improving the article. I can only assume for so long before actions conclusively prove otherwise.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Title question

Shouldn't the title article be "by" the US not "and" the US? Otherwise it is unclear. --BozMo talk 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current title was a compromise. Previously it was "allegations of state terrorism by the United States" or some such. To drop the allegations I think it was required that this article not pretend it was asserting fact that the US does state terrorism, or whatever. So basically it was a matter of having "by the United States" or removing "allegations". John Smith's (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have "Allegations" then -- otherwise we risk indicating that the article is also about state terrorism where the U.S. was the victim. Listing Port (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There was clear consensus just a few days ago on a move back to "Allegations", perhaps 8-1 for. (Here is the section: Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Scope_.2F_focus_of_the_article). We just need an admin to do it. - Merzbow (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm officially requesting a page move using the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves. Let's settle the issue in this section here. Any admin who is directed here from that page, see the "Scope and focus of the article" section linked to above for evidence of consensus to move (to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" or close variant). - Merzbow (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be we are archiving too much. Generally when a move is requested, the discussion should remain on this page until someone comes and closes it. I'll start a thread for this at the bottom of the page, so it is clear. Yahel Guhan 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

More deletions (proposed)

Looking through this, "operation mongoose" and "luis posada" strike me as more examples of over-long sections. Indeed the section here on OM is longer than the OM article. Thats not right. The Posada section is long (is there anything here that isn't duplicated there?), and though it connects with this article the connection isn't strong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Much of the "operation mongoose" material should be in the main article about that. As pointed out, strange that this section is longer than the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Posada, I am not sure that even Cuba now accuses him of being an US agent who did the bombing(s) with US support. There are accusation of hypocrisy since he is not extradited. But not of US state terrorism. Those statements in the article implying that Cuba are making current accusations of US terrorism seems to be OR. Here is a recent statement by a Cuban official: .Ultramarine (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disagreeing. That surprises me. I had another look at the LP section and again I'm astonished by how tenuous it is. It looks to me like he did the bombing; and that there was some US involvement; but that its weak. There are so many other things that are so much more solid that could be in here: have people just got an attachment to this section and won't let it go? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I proposed a better text below. See the "Posada" section below. Thoughts? Should have mentioned this proposal here also.Ultramarine (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources look distinctly dodgy to me - bulatlat.com, for example, who are they and are they an actual news source or just a blog that likes to look like one? I suggest that the sources are reviewed for reliability. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan (1945)

An editor has deleted the Japan (1945) section on the grounds that actions taken during war cannot be terrorism: see edit here. This is one point of view. The section previously contained a number of alternative points of view. Both should be represented in the article, that's Misplaced Pages policy on achieving a neutral point of view in POV disputes. However, rather than just jamming that overlong Japan section back in (and inevitably starting another oscillating edit-war section), how about we try a test-case in actual cooperation here on the talk page, and collaborate to write a suitable summary of the section agreeable to both sides, and in forking content out to main articles so that none is lost? I'm going to spend some time today working on a first draft, will post it up here when done (other first draft contributions welcome). I won't change it in the article unless there is consensus here. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's interpertation of the matter, and have posted so in the past. Actions conducted by a nation's regular military obviously cannot be terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis to remove this well referenced section. The editor who removed it only does so based on his own POV. That is telling. Its as if he did not bother to read the many sources that disagree with him. We are not supposed to only include material that we personally agree with. That is the wrong criteria. The section was balanced and the product of many editors working together. It should be restored and changes should be discussed before making major changes like this. I would restore it myself right now except I'm an IP editor and this article is on semi-protect. I urge another editor to please restore it.76.102.72.153 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked there were some reliable sources that specifically said US WW2 action in Japan was state terrorism, so that qualifies it for inclusion. But only those sources that do so (and those that respond to the charge), no irrelevant stuff. - Merzbow (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Below is what I've drafted to replace the Japan section. I have not removed or added any content, just put it in summary form.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan (1945)

Main article: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Some have characterized the United States' controversial atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as state terrorism, and even as the greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th century.

Interpretations of the attacks as state terrorism focus on the bombing of large civilian (rather than military) targets to achieve political goals, namely Japan's surrender through fear of national annihilation and the creation of a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. This has been said to meet one definition of terrorism, "indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose" or a definition of "war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender."

It has also been argued that the US practices seen in 1945 did not end then, rather the "deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."

It has been countered that "the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."

If you think that the section should not be there at all, please read WP:NPOV. It is specifically stated that facts about opinions should be included (i.e. we can state what people have been credibly reported to believe), and that opposing viewpoints should be described. That makes this a clearcut case of material that should be addressed, because so many reliable sources describe the bombings as terrorism by the US. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but their views (and those opposing) should be described. I'm proposing that we replace the section with this draft text (or any amended text agreed here by consensus) and then let normal editing fine-tune it as usual. If anyone has significant objections (as opposed to just amendments), please describe them with reference to relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Ryan Paddy (talk)

The arguments for why it's not state terrorism need to be bolstered, as presented above it's not balanced enough. There is some good material from that POV in Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki although careful work would be needed to ensure that the arguments addresses the terrorism claim directly (as opposed to just why it was ethically justifiable, why they were weren't really civilian targets, etc).--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan for trying to find trimmed down version, workgin with others on talk. We need more of that. I think we can talk about that, and make some progress this way-- and your first try is a good start. However, the whole section should not have been deleted, esp. without any discussion or consensus about doing so first. Therefore, will restore the massive deletions on principal. Personally, I think the Japan section was not too large at all but we will see what we can work out with other editors. As long as its done with consensus I'm fine with any major changes to this article.Supergreenred (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been discussions. Please see many sections above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have and they are just beggining, and certainly there is no consensus for the mass blanking of all the material that you keep doing Ultramarine. Why the rush to delete it all? Stop edit warring against consensus. Get consensus first, and when we have that we can make appropriate changes. Thanks.Supergreenred (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been no objections raised at all to many of the changes. There was no consensus asked for when adding this material. See also WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit war. That is not helping anything. These are long standing additoins that were added through the consensus process with compromise. There is no consensus to remove it, esp. all of it, as you are doing. I will take you to ANI if you persist in edit warring against consensus and blanking material over and over.Supergreenred (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections at all have been raised to many of these changes. Material was certainly not added by consensus. Many editors, not only me, have removed this material.Ultramarine (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flat out false. Material was added with full consensus among editors here. Only one editor choose to delete the section without ANY discussion. The discussion showed that this was lacking consensus, and restored. You are the ONLY editor who is now edit warring to blank it right away, and can't wait for on going discussions. I will now report you, unless you self revert and stop the edit warring against consensus.Supergreenred (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Material was removed by Dance With the Devil, JzG, Jtrainor, Merzbow, William M. Connolley, Rlevse, DHeyward in the past 48 hours. Certainly not one editor.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flase again. The section was first taking out by:(cur) (last) 20:11, 14 April 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) (73,294 bytes) (→Japan (1945): Nope. I believe Nagasaki was an atrocity, but a state of war existed and therefore this does not fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.) (undo) NO ONE else has removed it, except YOU, who is edit warring now to blank the section. Editors here have shown they are opposed to this removal. Again, NO CONSENSUS. STOP EDIT WARRING. Discussion has just started on it. The other massive deletions were done without conensus and did not last. They were reverted by many editors. Edit warring is not the way to go. I am preparing a report now, btw.Supergreenred (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You certainly did not revert only the Japan section but many other section discussed and removed by the editors described above. Many of which have not been objected to at all on the talk page when discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously not a new editor. Have you edited this article before? If so, then why are you not using that account?Ultramarine (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, no consensus for these massive changes. No consensus for blanking the Japan section, as you are doing against consensus. Why the rush to delete? What are you scared of allowing discussion and consensus to form first? Stop edit warring.Supergreenred (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered above.Ultramarine (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered that question, above. No need to repeat myself.Supergreenred (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to believe that having a source is a magic talisman that allows for all content to be included and defended against whatever objections. You are wrong. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to demonstrate its relevance, significance in context, and achieve consensus for its inclusion. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement, it means agreement to stand by the result. That is plainly missing in the case of the edits you dispute, which amount to a laundry list of people who have alleged something - and this actually weakens the article very considerably, making it look like a long litany of schoolyard complaints. As to the atomic bombings, I think that it is wrong to call them terrorism. I am firmly of the opinion that the Nagasaki bombing was the single worst atrocity of the war, but a state of war did exist and it was and always had been an all-out war which involved both military and civilian targets. To call it terrorism is historical revisionism. It was an act which so appalled Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, DSO and Two Bars, DFC, the most decorated bomber pilot in the RAF, that he quit the force and set up a charity for the terminally ill, but it was not an act of terrorism by the standards of the time, and it was not just the US either as the Manhattan Project was an Allied project not just a US one and the operation was also an Allied operation, with a British observer on the Nagasaki mission at least. On top of this personal view, I just checked the sources and they are thin. A few individuals, including individual self-published sources on university personal microsites. If this was a significant view, there will be more and bigger and better quality sources. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Guy said, but especially the point about this being an Allied attack. It's wrong to single the US out over the atomic bombings. It was an Allied operation, even if US aircraft actually dropped the bombs, so it shouldn't be labelled as US act of anything. If someone wanted to enter it into an article on Allied war crimes, that would be differnt. John Smith's (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"It's wrong to single the US out over the atomic bombings" John Smith - Are you actually trying to argue that if the US didn't 'act alone' that absolves the US from responsibility for terrorist acts? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it means it's not an act of state terrorism even if it is an act of terrorism, which is an assertion supported by very few sources. I don't know what the term would be for an act of terrorism sponsored by multiple states acting in concert, but it is historical revisionism to apply the term to these attacks and factually incorrect to ascribe them to the US. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? "State terrorism is a term used to describe terrorism carried out by governments." Who carried out these bombings, if not governments? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't see the need for such a long discussion. Many of the citations deal with the horror of large scale bombing of civilians, but as Guy says, if they don't make the connection to terrorism, we shouldn't be using them. I do observe that Michael Walzer, who is the most reliable source on just war theory currently alive, believes that the term war terrorism is useful, and applies it here. I would support a single line in the article saying that while some (Frey) have characterised the actions as state terrorism, the general view (Burleigh Wilkins) is that it isn't applicable here, and indeed Walzer (name him in the text) believes that "war terrorism" is a useful term for this sort of act. If nothing else, it will keep people from wondering why it isnt in here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would retain a section heading, one line as you suggest (more only to the extent explicit and solid "state terrorism" sources are found), and a link to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Keep it brief yet in the TOC and to the point. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A section on "acts of war" in general would be a better place, since the same might apply to the joint US / British carpet bombing of Germany earlier in the war, and litle distinction is drawn in principle between Dresden and Hiroshima (or indeed Coventry, in some books I've read). Guy (Help!) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Not to mention that there is currently nothing on Dresden to put in such a section; I'm sure that can be remedied.) The allegations are currently sectioned "by region". I'm not sure how a section like this might work. But since the considerations are the same, having two sections (for Japan and Germany) would surely be suboptimal. Ideas? — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had the firebombing of Dresden in the back of my mind too while summarising that Japan section. Firebombings and atom-bombings of cities full of (arguably) civilians during war, presumably similar arguments apply. Although the political context may be relevant too - there may be arguments made that the time and place (the specific war context) of the atom bombings made them more like terrorism. However, the main difference is that we seem have a whole lot of sources specifically describing the atom-bombings as terrorism, and I don't know if the same is true for the other bombings. Whereas the accusation of atom-bomb terrorism is specifically mentioned in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there's nothing similar in Bombing of Dresden in World War II (just one reference there with a "terrorism" title). We need to see if there are reliable sources asserting that the other bombings were terrorism before re-jigging the section's focus. The Mark Selden reference does go some way towards tying it into other US war actions, so it already belongs in an "Acts of war" (or similarly titled) section. I agree that the coverage doesn't need to be any longer than necessary to address the core arguments and refutations, it can certainly be shorter than my draft.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a specious argument to claim that "it is wrong to single out the U.S." for the atomic bombings. Whether or not they had collaborators which merit a portion of the moral scrutiny- the fact is that the U.S. was significantly responsible, in this case directly responsible for the decision. The allies were by no means uniform in the military tactics they chose. In fact prior to 1945 the U.S. had rejected the terrorist area bombing tactics of the British. Yet by 1945 the Americans were joining the British in the firebombing of Dresden. According to Douglas Lackey in "The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State", "Hap Arnold, commander of the Twentieth Air Force in the Pacific Theater, recommended that the XXI Bomber Command consider taking the RAF as their model and commencing incendiary attacks on Japanese cities.“ (Lackey, Douglas. The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 130-136) Lackey provides a thorough analysis of the question whether the area bombings, culminating in the nuclear attacks against civilian populations should be considered an act of terrorism. His conclusion is: “By the Ratio of Damage standard the fire raids of 1945 were terrorist attacks. The vast majority of people killed were civilians; the vast majority of structures destroyed were non-military structures. The intent of the raids was to induce surrender by inducing death and pain on the civilian population. About 500,000 Japanese civilians died in these raids. In nine months American bombing had killed almost as many civilians as British bombing had killed in three and a half years" also noting that “Terror bombing was employed by the United States during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the action against Serbia in 1999.” (Lackey, Douglas. The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 130-136)BernardL (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BernardL, would you approve of a single section that covered all US bombings of "civilians" during wartime that have been characterised as terrorism in reliable sources, including those in Japan, Germany, and any other examples or general statements on the matter of US bombings of "civilians" as being terrorism and all counterarguments? If so, would you be willing to write a draft for the section together in summary form and post it here, perhaps using some of my Japan summary above as raw material? We should keep it down to two or three paragraphs, and the more logical flow it has (as opposed to a list of quotes) the better. It would be encouraging to see some real progress on content.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to undergo the attempt to do it, and evaluate the product. When the section was originally created way back when I had provided material from Selden and So about the firebombings prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, if I recall correctly, the book "Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues" may contain some balancing material in the other essays in the book. It might take a few days. My main problem is personal, unlike the past, my current schedule does not allow me very much time for editing wikipedia. We should really be opening the idea up to everyone to provide relevant material and ideas from reliable sources, placing them here, as well as to discuss a possible structure for the section. It seems to me that pinning down the moral reasons why Selden, So, Lackey, Walzer, Coady, etc. describe it as an act of terrorism, distinguishable from an act of war, should be an important element. I know that BigTimePeace, who also worked on the section, is familiar with, among other stuff, a notable historiographical article from Samuel Walker that may be of use, in addition to your own raw material and suggestions.BernardL (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that the way to address some of the major criticism of the article: that it is 'merely' a laundry list of incidents - relook at the article and identify and group material based on various 'types' of terrorist acts with links to articles that provide greater detail? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth thinking about and discussing, but at the moment it seems to me that grouping by types of state terrorist acts, as well as institutions (such as death squads) is more under the rubric of the general state terrorism article.BernardL (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of grouping by type of action is the arguments about whether that type of action is terrorism could be stated just once. There are two types of contraversy discussed in this article. One is whether a given type of action is terrorism. The other is whether the US committed that type of action. If this article was sectioned by type of action, then each section would have to first address the discussion of whether the US performed actions of that type (except in cases like the atom bombings where it is uncontraversial), followed by arguments about whether actions of that type constitute terrorism. Both parts could summarise and link to other articles, such as historical incident articles or a relevant section of State Terrorism. I didn't mean to burden BernardL by asking for a draft, if anyone with good access to sources and an overview of the subject is able to put together a draft here of a war bombings of "civilians" section that'd be great. I put civilians in quotes because one of the opposing arguments in regards to the atom bombs is that Japan's "total war" approach meant there were no civilians in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Even the babies were military (black humour, sorry).--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue."Walker, J. Samuel (2005-April). "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground". Diplomatic History. 29 (2): 334. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."Coady, Tony (2004). Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. XV. ISBN 0-52285049-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. Vol. 18. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
4. Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. Vol. 19 (no. 2). {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)
5. Campanioni, Maria Salomé (2005-08-08). "Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, 'Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History'". watchingamerica.com. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. "Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
7. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company. pp. pp. 312-313. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
8. "Hiroshima: Quotes". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
9. "Bard Memorandum". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
10. "Decision: Part I". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
11. Freeman, Robert (2006). "Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?". CommonDreams.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
12. "United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report". United States Government Printing Office. 1946. pp. pg. 26. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
13. "Hiroshima; Breaking the Silence". Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
14. "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help)
15. Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45
16. Selden, Mark (2002-09-09). "Terrorism Before and After 9-11". Znet. Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
17. Wilkins, Taylor. Terrorism and Collective Responsibility. Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 0-41504152-X.

break

I will be re-adding this section when the protection is up, since not valid point was presented above. If someone wants to add a counter, please start writing it now, however I will not accept anyone's personal opinion over the actual sources presented. Since this section contains 6+ source identifying the incident as "state terrorism" specifically, even meeting the most stringent demand place by a certain few, it clearly is acceptable for the article. If you want to debate this point of inclusion feel free to do so, however peoples personal opinions will be discounted as just those, cite your sources and please debate the point presented fully, that even if it was an act of war, it can still be terrorism, as terrorism does not negate "war time" activities even in the U.S. definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources in the original text have no mention of state terrorism. As well as completely excluding opposing views. Like "Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." No mention of state terrorism in sources given and completely ignores opposing views given in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry I will cut the fluff, just to note, removing content that could have been simply edited is a no no. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed text we can discuss? Ultramarine (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on an article, once its complete I will rewrite the section and re-add it to the article, barring the article is not protected at the time. We can then discuss the content on its merits as relevant, and policy, as opposed to personal opinions of what constitutes terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi I Write stuff, could you please post your revised version here for discussion, and not edit the article until it has been discussed and refined by the interested editors? The history of this particular article is that undiscussed material turns into reversion war material. In most articles it would be fair enough to just post it up and let wikipedia take its course, but for this article it would be unconstructive, please be sensitive to the specific editing context of this article. Also, please note the discussion above of broading the scope of the "Japan" section to a general discussion of large civilian bombings in wartime. I respectfully suggest that this could form a new top-level section, in between "General allegations against the US" and "Specific allegations against the US by region " and called "Allegations of wartime terrorism by the US". I would love to see a draft of such a section here.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with that Ryan Paddy, is that the last war we were engaged in was WW2. None of the conflicts since, including Korea, Vietnam, the so-called "war on terror" or any of the Persian Gulf conflicts is a declared war. So that pretty much limits that section to WW2 and before. By definition. Unless we change it to something like military actions or conflicts. The 1945 atomic attacks against Japanese civilian populations are labeled, by multiple reliable sources, as state terrorism, or equivalent, and definitely belong in the article. However, the section should be discussed here first, before adding to the article. Otherwise there will be reverting, or worse again. — Becksguy (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty minor nominal issue, given that all those wars have "war" articles here on wikipedia (e.g. Korean War), and that the Douglas Lackey reference that BernardL gave above discribes them as wars while calling some US actions within them terrorism. If the references discuss the fact that they weren't "declared" wars as relevant to whether their bombings can be called terrorism, then that could be mentioned. But on the whole if the references call them war and terrorism then it's reasonable for us to label the section that way. I don't have major objections to some sort of "military actions" phrasing, but I think "war" is clearer. I'd be equally happy with "war terrorism" in the section title, but that seems to be an existing phrase that not all the references use so it could lead to arguments here on talk.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. JPG-GR (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that State terrorism and the United States be renamed and moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

• Support as it is an allegation, not a relationship. Yahel Guhan 05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as the experimental wider scope has failed to materialize. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support finally, let's get back on topic! Igor Berger (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as current title includes both terrorism against the US and terrorism by the US which don't work well together in an article, and because the "allegation" wording is neutral (it doesn't state the existence or non-existence of US state-terrorism)--Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support The original move was unilateral anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This naming would be in line with other similar articles in State terrorism, is more narrowly and better focused (the existing scope was too wide; terrorism against the US should be a separate subject), describes more clearly what the subject is for readers (State terrorism and the US was just too vague), and the proposed title is more neutral, per WP:NPOV. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• If the "allegation" wording is neutral, then why not change all articles on terrorism to "alleged X". We should change the "Terrorism" article to "Allegations of Terorrism." Why isn't the "Eco-terrorism" article called "Alegations of Ecxo-terrorism"? See what I mean? The gray area about by/against can be addressed by calling it "State Terrorism by the US." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosuperpower (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support In line with the other "state terrorism" articles. Also WP:Words to avoid: "Example: an article title 'Israeli terrorism' inherently implies that Misplaced Pages takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for 'Islamic terrorism'." So inserting allegations is necessary.Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Allegations articles are for specific allegations. We want this article to discuss the analysis of US actions and to what degree they have impacted and overlap with the definitions of state terrorism. There is absolutely no policy-based justification to moving this to a less-academically recognisable title. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid as stated above. Also, "state terrorism" has no agreed on definition. See the state terrorism article. Which makes allegations an appropriate title.Ultramarine (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Except this article isn't about allegations alone. I note also that any WTA-based objection would be valid if the article was American State Terrorism. "Allegations of X" in an article analysing discussions that are a long way from "allegations" is simply not OK in my book. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  "American State Terrorism" and "United States and state terrorism" are not allowed for the reason stated in WP:WTA. They imply that US actions are in fact proven to be "state terrorism". Which cannot be the case since there is no definition, legal or otherwise, on what "state terrorism" is. It is just a perjorative term used by certain sensationalist US critics. Which is why the other articles on "state terrorism" are appropriately called "Allegations...".Ultramarine (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see that implication at all. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support I don't think using the word means WP is taking a stand. Its not more NPOV, and not needed. But I'm ok with trying it. There was some discussion above about 'Political Violence" being added to the title. We might want to try that: Allegations of State Terrorism and Political Violence by the US? We don't want too broad as it would bury this topic/subject, nor so constrained that it we have edit warring about what is to be included or not to explain the topic/subject. I think including both terms is just right for the article topic.Supergreenred (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mixed. By is clearly an improvement on and but "allegations" is weasel wording. --BozMo talk 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  Alleged is an acceptable term according to Misplaced Pages:Words to Avoid Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but doesn't change the fact that it is weasel here. State terrorism by the United States is a real and notable as a topic regardless of whether it is real (cf God). It is weasel wording to put questions into the title (we don't have allegations of God existing. --BozMo talk 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again see WP:Words to avoid for not allowed titles: "Example: an article title 'Israeli terrorism' inherently implies that Misplaced Pages takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for 'Islamic terrorism'." So alleged or some similar construction is necessary. All the other state terrorism articles are called "Allegations", like Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, and Allegations of state terrorism by Russia.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The first point is rather weak but the second is a strong argument. America may be the largest state sponsor of terrorism but it isn't a special case and I agree should fit the pattern. --BozMo talk 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

America is not major sponsor of terrorism. All the accusations against the US added together are less than those killed by for example the Soviet Union in only the Great Terror. See also democide for the real killers.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I carefully said it may be not it was. However, it is obvious that it may be, depending on how you play with definitions, what timescale and whether you normalise per head of population. It is also obvious that it may not be. Anyone care? --BozMo talk 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Normalizing per head would certainly place the US very low. Would probably place the Red Khmers at the top.Ultramarine (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although I think the original intention behind moving the title was an honest one, the old title would allow for a tighter article. John Smith's (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Tighter and more accurate. - Merzbow (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have overwhelming support (something we can (nearly) all agree on !?!). I'm going to do it soon, unless someone beats me to it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ironically onto a chain of pages with comments like "moved State terrorism and the United States to Allegations of State terrorism by critics of the United States ‎ (Move back to original title after no consensus rename.)" and "moved Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States: This is an uncontroversial move to reduced ambiguity in the wording of the title"... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've left off editing this article for the time being, hallelujah, but as the one who suggested (but did not execute) the move to "State Terrorism and the United States" I regret that that title does not seem to work for most people. The goal of that title was to: A) Make the title more concise, since the "Allegations" one is absurdly long; 2) Create a more flexible topic whereby we addressed the general relationship between the US and the concept of "state terror" from a variety of perspectives; G) (my numbering might be screwed up here...I think G comes after two) Specifically with respect to point 2, I was hoping the title would open the article to accusations made by the US against other nations, thus providing balance to the article and a better sense of how the United States government has defined "state terrorism" over the years (I was hoping for some research into the Cold War and US thoughts on actions by the USSR and their proxies - a topic which will necessarily be excluded given the current title). It seemed like a novel solution to a number of problems, but oh well. Also it probably would have been better to move it to "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States," another former title. There is a wording ambiguity in the current title in that it can refer to allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States and to allegations of state terrorism made by the United States, as in US accusations against others (which is why the word committed was added in the first place I believe). If this is to be an article that addresses broader connections between the US and the notion of state terror then clearly the previous title makes more sense, but because it apparently is not at this point I think we need the word committed in there. Also this talk page needs to be moved to the new title.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bigtimepeace. The grammatical inconsistency in the title "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" raises issues. It could refer to allegations made by the US, allegations directed at the US, or both. No matter what the case, no article title should confuse or render ambiguous the scope of an article. Random89 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - "allegations" is pretty much all the evidence I need to be convinced this article fails nearly every major policy. Sceptre 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1953 Iran

Shouldn't 1953's coup d'état in Iran be added to this list? ~ UBeR (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source arguing that it was US state terrorism? Note that this is not a general article for US criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do any of your sources call Guatemala's 1954 coup d'état U.S. state terrorism? Nope. But in many respects Iran's coup d'état was more terroristic than Guatemala's. You guys seem to rely heavily on Chomsky, I'm sure he's called Iran's coup d'état state-sponsored terrorism somewhere (Necessary Illusions, maybe?). The Iranian coup d'état, however, has an important distinction as one the first time the U.S. meddled in Middle Eastern affairs through terroristic means. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the 1954 coup material should be removed. Again, if there is a source alleging that the Iranian coup was US "state terrorism", then please cite this source. This not a general article for dumping various US criticisms. Certain definitions of terrorism speaks about using terror against civilians to influence the government. A coup does not fit such definitions very well. It changes the government directly. But since there is no agreed on definition on what "state terrorism" is, then maybe there is some source who claims that coups and explicitly the Iranian coup is US state terrorism. Then we could possible include it.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not just some general criticism of the U.S. Operation Ajax is a known false flag operation carried out by the U.S. government through terroristic means, like killing innocent civilians. I do not know how much clearer an "allegation of state terrorism by the United States" could get. If you really are completely in the dark on this subject, I would suggest to you All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how much clearer it can be - if you find a source saying that this operation was "state terrorism by the United States", because you ain't gonna get any editors here to agree on what is "state terrorism" from first principles. - Merzbow (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're really serious, try getting the term into 1953 Iranian coup d'état and that article into Category:Terrorism first; I rather doubt that'll work, but that's the way to go. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Move talk page

Since it appears the main article has already been moved to "Allegations of," so too should the talk page. I tried, but couldn't. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. I think its now done, but I'm in a hurry and must go. Please don't notice the major f*ck up along the way... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks blocked

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers may be of intereest. Who knows, peace may descend on this page... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New article name

Worse than before. Seriously, if you want it kept, making it an "Allegations" article isn't the right way to do it. Sceptre 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A number of people supporting the move want it deleted (I don't know who proposed it originally, but it could well be someone from the "delete" camp - those who support keeping this article have generally not like this title, while those who don't like the article do liked this title). This was the previous title for a long time, but I agree with you that it's not a very good one. The consensus above seemed to be to move it though - I just wish the word "committed" would be added in per my comment above in the "requested move" section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this title, the way it is now. It deal with the events that may or may not be called terrorism, hence allegations. Are the events notable? Yes they are! Igor Berger (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

At the least it should be changed to "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States" to avoid any ambiguity. Folks don't seem to notice, but that was the title before it was moved to "State Terrorism and the United States" (see this diff). Had the page not been moved within the first 24 hours after the move was formally suggested (i.e. had there been some time allowed for discussion) perhaps it could have been pointed out what the previous title was and why.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Committed may be more accurate, but it may be overly lengthy. It seems like all of the other "state terrorism" articles are also named "Allegations of state terrorism by <country X>", so precedent also seems to point to this form of title (and we shouldn't dismiss precedent set by editors over a decent number of articles lightly). - Merzbow (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It does imply "commited", so I do not think it is a problem, the way it is worded now. Igor Berger (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But looking at it again, it does suggest ambiguity so modifying to include "commited" would be best "Allegation of state terrorism commited by United States" Igor Berger (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Merzbow) I agree about precedent, but the precedent for all of those articles is this article (the Iran and Russia articles were, if I remember, created as direct responses to this one and merely duplicated the title of this article at that time - a title which was not and never had been stable). Given that I think what we should do is suggest changing the other article titles to include the word committed as this one (the "parent" article so to speak) did until February. The word "committed" was in this article title for quite some time and no one objected. It is just undeniable that the current title is very linguistically ambiguous and that is not acceptable. As to length, it's already two long (8 words) and I don't think one more word (which clarifies the meaning) is that big of a problem. Part of the advantage of "State Terrorism and the United States" was that it was a short title. If we're going to go with the long title we should at least choose one that clearly explains what the article is about. This current title does not do that. Incidentally Merzbow it's nice to see that you're back on this article as you've always struck me as very fair minded in your approach, even though I've disagreed with you about a number of issues. I'm still keeping it off my watchlist for now but would like to see this title issue resolved one way or another.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The title change notice box at the top of the page suggests that the name is both being changed from AND to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States". Is that notice box simply out of date or is there another suggested name change in the offing? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just an outdated move note now that the article has actually been moved, however it's a hilarious summary of how ridiculous this article has been over the years. There have actually been dumber debates here than debating whether we should move from the current title to the current title.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in the recent move proposal many people were not a ware of "commited" in the tile, in the previews version, including me. And now that it has been pointed out for languistics, it should be incoporated in the fix. Only when person made a reference to this problem during the title move discussion. I and other editors did not really give it the attention due, because the editor did not metion "commited" but "against" vs "by" but "commited by" makes perfect languistic sense. We can run the move proposal again. Igor Berger (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose "committed", but let's give it some time before creating another proposal to let things settle down. And ideally the debate could be held at a higher level that would also encompass the names of the other articles. - Merzbow (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, we might as well wait until the AfD is over. If it survives I would suggest a discussion about adding the word "committed" and if there is consensus for that we can take it to the other articles and see what they think (or just post notes on those talk pages and ask those editors to come over here).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutting down to a bulleted list with links

Can we do this in a similar vein to List of designated terrorist organizations? Might get rid of a lot of issues. Sceptre 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of systematic bias

I think the problem with this article and other articles that criticize America like anti-Americanism is that their is systematic bias against them. As you can see how the mediation of anti-Americanism is being conducted Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism I would like Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to join the project that deals with systematic bias on Misplaced Pages.

v t e WikiProject: Countering systemic bias Project members create new articles and improve neglected ones.
Review and improve	American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present) Eastern Europe Central Europe Medical assistant Hoda Barakat Women's rights movement in Iran Roch Marc Christian Kaboré Cultural practice Covance History of East Asia White pride Ryke Geerd Hamer Western painting American exceptionalism American (word) BRIC Rwandan genocide History of HIV/AIDS Moon-eyed people Australia national soccer team Leopard Society
Article requests	Marcel Météore Mois Benarroch Gert-Jan Lokhorst
Expand	Oscar Pill Sorbian literature Henrique Abranches Ti-Grace Atkinson List of Islamic educational institutions Muntaqim v. Coombe Turbi massacre National Unity Party Álvaro Mutis African Progress Union Southern Aslian languages Surojana Sethabutra Rachel Foster Avery MediaSmarts
Update	First Ivorian Civil War Cotonou Banjul War in Darfur Stay-at-home dad Ituri conflict
Article Project page All open tasks

Also it would be good if we creat an article on Misplaced Pages space that deals with systematic bias' WP:systametic bias Igor Berger (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored deletions

I restored deletions of several thousand words that were deleted by editors who have a long history of deleting articles they personally don't agree with.

I would suggest that this information stay in the article until the AfD.

When the AfD is closed "no consensus" yet again, then these editors can continue to attempt their informal AfD of the article, by slowly deleting this article section by section.

I would also suggest that these editors attempt to add content to this article. I think Ultramarine is the only person who actively deletes sections he dislikes, but who actually has added content to this article.

Everyone else simply deletes well referenced material they disagree with, contributing nothing but animosity. Trav (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for this much-needed cleanup, at long last (after two sockfarmers and their socks were blocked). - Merzbow (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow, your bogus "consensus" claim is as false as your ridiculous claim that there has not been any edit wars on this page in the past couple of days.

Next you will claim that you are only concerned about a NPOV encyclopedia, using a variety of acronyms to support your bias. Pleassseee. 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the past two days, the only edit war is the one YOU created by jumping in out of the blue, making three reverts, and getting the page locked via your OWN request. A bravura performance indeed. - Merzbow (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one think that the material should be restored, and its removal should be properly discussed. This was never the case. The admin (William M. Connolley) who performed the deletion wrote (above) that the material should be in sub-articles. I suggest either reverting these deletions, or creating the aforementioned sub-articles, or at the very least posting a more detailed rationale for the individual bits of the deletion. For instance, in the Nicaragua section, Noam Chomsky directly criticizes the US of state terrorism, based on the ICJ decision. This was deleted, with the summary that it should be in a sub-article. But so far the editor doing the removal has been the least active in pushing for the creation of sub-articles. I suppose the onus is on us to pick up the pieces then. I suggest the following two options:

• As suggested by User:William M. Connolley, create a sub-article entitled Allegations of state terrorism by the United States in Latin America.
• Restore the deleted material until consensus develops. If it is to be deleted, it should be done incrementally and with full participation of editors involved, rather than under page protection by an admin (who, I should add, was also one of the small number of Delete votes at the AfD).

My vote, for what it's worth, is to create a sub-article. silly rabbit (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time the irrelevant material has been deleted. The issues with it have been pointed out for literally years, and the material has been sustained most recently by an onslaught of socks (an activity I might add the pro-delete side has never been blocked for). It's in the edit history for whoever wants to put it where it belongs. - Merzbow (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 was recently unblocked FYI, though Merzbow is correct that there has been socking recently and in the past (including on the pro-delete side - there have been dozens of IP edits over the years that were almost certainly socking, but no creation of "pro-delete" sock accounts as far as I know). I haven't been here for a couple of months, but I would point out that much of the material that was at the article (before recent deletions) was much different than what was here last summer during and after the AfD at that time. Some of the new stuff is better, some of it is worse. Most of the new stuff came from a few editors on the "keep" side and, because of an unfortunate (but understandable) absence from folks on the other side of the fence, had nothing to do with socking. There was "consensus" for it at the time because few folks were editing here. Obviously that consensus can be undone, but it takes discussion.

I do think the deletions (and I have not even reviewed the whole history) were made in haste though I'm sure some were advisable. We seem to have a good complement of editors now, so if and when the article passes AfD folks here should go through it section by section and re-instate deleted material, add balancing material, trim prose, etc. One of the main reasons this article has never worked in the past is there are often 12 different threads going at the same time and everyone is working at cross purposes. The solution is for all editors to say, "Okay, let's deal with the Japan section," have a discussion about it, improve it and come to consensus, then move on to the next one. I hope a strategy like this can be implemented once the AfD is over (assuming it's not deleted).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What "pro-delete" IP edits? Diffs please. There was never any consensus for adding the material. Added without any talk page discussions usually. There have been many discussions on the deleted material above. Many with no oppositions raised.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the material was longstanding. Some of it has been changed recently, but that is not an excuse to summarily delete it. The appropriate thing to do is to delete it incrementally, perhaps one paragraph at a time, over the course of a few days or weeks, with a clearly indicated talk-page section discussing each deletion. That is not what happened here, and I do not see consensus for the removal. In fact, on the contrary, two editors protest-reverted and several other editors battled to have the material reinstated. According to WP:CONSENSUS, the onus is on the parties wanting to make a change, particularly such a drastic change, to obtain consensus once they have been reverted. See for instance WP:BRD. Given the reversions, the edit war, and the discussions that have developed here, I would say that there is clearly not consensus to summarily remove the material. silly rabbit (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has in fact been deleted over several days and weeks. Many discussions on the talk page. Many without opposition raised. The problem is that some editors have blankly reverted all changes without explanations. Finally, again, material was added without discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit happened in under one hour, and resulted in about half of the viewable text of the article being deleted. It was not done incrementally at all. And on the talk page I see some general discussions about article length, and more of the usual bickering, but no general consensus that half of the article should be deleted, and not even a clear statement of what was deleted and why so that it can be properly discussed. The principal reason offered was that all of the deleted material has (or should have) its own article. Am I missing something? silly rabbit (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not correct. Many of these things had been discussed and deleted before this. Several now indefinitely blocked sockpuppets restored this. Much of the deleted material is in already in other articles.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. These massive deletions were done unilaterally prior to any discussions, without consensus and they are thus completely illegitimate deletions of well sourced material, followed by the Afd request. The indef blocked accounts have not been identified as socket-puppets either, so that is false. They will probably be unblocked after sufficient examination. In anycase, I and many other long term editors have reverted this masssive deletion in protest, already, so your point about these other accounts is moot. I hope that this material will be restored and then good faith discussion can finally take place about how to properly trim or move material as consensus dictates--not a single editor as dictator.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

False. See for example the sections "El Salvador background section" and "Philippines background" above. No "good faith discussion" took place before adding the material.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "many of these things had been discussed and deleted before this." What and when? You are not accurately characterizing the recent (as in last few months) history of this article from where I sit. If there was a past consensus for massive deletions, you are going to have to direct us to the appropriate section in the talk archives.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Never any consensus for adding this material. If you look at the edit history you can see that many of these things had been deleted before edit activity Silly rabbit mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, talk page sections? Saying "look at the edit history" is not helpful (there are thousands of edits over several years). There was consensus for adding much of the material at various times. That's a fact. That consensus can change, of course, but you cannot claim there was never consensus with referring to specific diffs and/or talk page sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

. Regarding claims that there was a consensus for adding the material, that is your claim, so you have to provide the sources. As far as I remember material have usually simply been added without any talk page discussions.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For a more general discussion of the problems with the article and the OR and SYN used see: Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion/move to another article

According to Reality of Aid, in the period from 2000 to 2003, military loans and grants to the Philippines from the U.S. grew by 1,776 percent. As of 2005, according to President Arroyo the Philippines were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Asia and fourth worldwide; aid since then has continued to increase. U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Philippines almost trebled from $30 million in 2004 to $80 million in 2005, with the bulk of that money used to upgrade Philippine marine and counter-terrorism capabilities. Allegedly, development aid has been used "to intensify attack...against unarmed civilians including the leaders and members of legal people's organizations.""While development aid may be used for livelihood projects, infrastructure, or social services, we fear that the AFP will only use such projects to gather intelligence or launch special operations in communities that they believe are NPA bases."

By late 2006, the United States had given roughly US$300 million of aid to the AFP and delivered hundreds of American soldiers to organize and execute extended training exercises with the Filipino police and military apparatus. In May of 2006 the Philippines and the U.S. approved an agreement to establish a formal board to "determine and discuss the possibility of holding joint U.S.-Philippine military exercises against terrorism and other non-traditional security concerns.".

The United States — through the person of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley — has broadly "congratulated the government of the Philippines...for achievements while at the same time acknowledging the valuable role of partnership with the United States".

General Jovito Palparan has been widely condemned for his roles in the killings; notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", Palparan has been officially condemned by official Philippine investigations as responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses. For instance, "hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan." In an opinion article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer Palparan was quoted as saying: The killings are being attributed to me but I did not kill them. I just inspire the triggermen...Their disappearance is good for us but as to who abducted them, we don’t know....I encourage people victimized by communist rebels to get even.}}

President Arroyo's promotion of him to one-star general has been widely condemned as a gesture of support for military-backed state terrorism. Palparan has received advanced training and official support from the U.S. government, as well as heading up the Philippine forces in the initial 2001 invasion of Iraq.

None of this material accuses the US of state terrorism. Violates WP:SYN to argue that. Should be deleted or moved to articles like Human rights in the Philippines or Philippines-United States relations.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It should just be removed. I'd love someone to try to explain with a straight face how simple foreign aid could possibly be construed as any kind of terrorims. Jtrainor (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure its quite so simple. Giving people money that you know full well will be used for terrorism is in itself aiding terrorism, though whether its actually terrorism is a bit harder. But certainly all the second part should go William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The accusation has already been made in a source that the funding of their military to carry out the acts they did with it, were terrorism. Clearly showing the relevance. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Violates WP:SYN. That another source accuses the US of state terrorism does not mean that these sources do.Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further, aid does not mean support for everything done. Quite often aid has various strings attached. For all we know the situation would be much worse without the US using aid as a leverage to decrease the human rights violations which in fact have decreased dramatically in 2007.Ultramarine (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OY VEY!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

?Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace documents that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.

From the beginning — as early as 2001 — the U.S. State Department publicly acknowledged in a published report that "Members of the security services were responsible for extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention," In the same report, the State Department admitted that the presence of U.S. Special Forces and other military advisers had "helped create an environment in which human rights abuses increased", commenting that 'there were allegations by human rights groups that these problems worsened as the Government sought to intensify its campaign against the terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).'" Further, in 2003 the U.S. government — in anticipation that its military personnel would be charged with human rights abuses — offered the Philippines' government an extra US$30 million of military aid in exchange for "an agreement that would exempt U.S. soldiers operating in the Philippines from the International Criminal Court".

Again this material makes no accusation of US state terrorism. Should be deleted or moved to more general US foreign policy criticism articles or articles about US-Philippine relations.Ultramarine (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WMC's deletions

Can people answer the following questions, if possible:

• What proportion of WMC's deletions of material in the Central American sections and others are not in the sub-articles?
• Is there any objection to moving them there per WP:SS?
• Which of WMC's deletions removed material that was specific to terroristic acts or support of terroristic acts? If they're listed one-by-one, we can look at them with fresh eyes.
• What is everyone's opinion of an ideal size for this article? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Size: substantially smaller than now. Otherwise, I'll repeat what I've said above: (a) stuff that can be in sub-articles, should be (b) this article needs refocussing away from being a laundry-list and towards analysis William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Excessive content is being deleted. Rather than deleting whole swaths of content, I will agree that eventually section sizes can be decreased, assuming that all content is transferred to the daughter articles and summarized here. But until that is done, keep everything that was in the article here, then work on one section at a time. — Becksguy (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. The article is bloated with barely relevant material. Some of it is already gone. I don't see any of the people who claim to care about this content doing anything to make sure its preserved in daughter articles. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Partially because it takes so much time to make sure that no more information is being deleted from THIS article that there is no leftover time to defend the daughter articles from POV pushers as well. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the material is already in the proper articles like Human rights in the Philippines, Salvadoran Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War etc. No need for this article to duplicate background material not mentioning the US at all.Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats excuse-making, and not at all convincing. The page is fairly stable at the moment, and whats come and gone can be easily checked. And of course its all available in the history. Face it: all those people who complained so much about "valuable" material being cut have done nothing to salvage it. Go on, please, prove me wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't mean that I have unlimited time and energy to keep abreast of every article and Afd related to each of those articles that I am potentially interested in. When this current sham of AfD is closed then future steps can be reviewed.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When you block the people reverting you, against the version you created, its no wonder. Your continued insinuation that your violation of the rules of being an admin, and the punishment you lay out to keep your version as acceptable, may mean its time for a larger community input into your actions on this article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been numerous editors creating the current version. The many sockpuppets reverting all changes are not interesting.Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as terrorism against this article, because it's in a state of war. More seriously, I would now prefer the longer version kept so that it can be edited down to a summary form with unreliable sources expunged (because it's logistically easier than searching through old versions for material), but I'm not about to take a hand in this stupid revert war. Just because I'm not reverting the reverts, doesn't mean I for one agree with them. It just means I respect the spirit of the WP:BATTLE and WP:3RR policies. With respect to WMC's approach of trimming articles down to the first paragraphs in the hopes that they would be edited into good summaries of the removed material, while I gave it the benefit of the doubt at first it now doesn't seem to have worked. It just made people angry and distrustful and has moved the edit war to a new front line. I believe it would be easier to start with the longer version and trim it down one section at a time, but if the new summary-form version has to be built from deleted material instead then so be it.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was starting to be trimmed long before WMC edited. I agree that this article has been a battleground. It will continue to be so until we agree on same basic rules regarding the article. 1. This is a general US criticism article for dumping all kinds of US criticisms. A variant of this frequently mentioned is that if a single source accuses the US for state terrorism in some nation, then we can cite any other criticism of the US or the allied nation as being state terrorism regardless of it the source make such an allegation or not. 2. Sources must accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your continued repetition of this false statement does not make it any more true the thousandth time you say it than it did the first 999. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, my dear young friend, if simply repeating something often enough made it true, there would have been Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq and Sadaam Hussein would have had strong ties to the 9/11 bombers. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do not explain why the argument is wrong, then the issue is settled.Ultramarine (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering your question 1001 times will not help this debate if you continue to not read the answer. Your 'concerns' have been addressed and disposed of multiple times on this page and in the archives. Go back and read them. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering once will be fine. What is your answer?Ultramarine (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we are done, because we have answered multiple multiple multiple times. Go back and read and leave this poor poor poor dead horse be. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it has, then you can simply state it here so the issue will be settled.Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is reverting between verbose and cut-down states, which is what it was also doing before WMC. There was and is no movement in a specific direction, just an oscillation. I agree entirely that only sources who accuse the US of terrorism should be included. They don't have to say the word "state" because the US is a state/nation so it's implied, so long as they are talking about government decisions. There are a number of such sources in the article, some of which are blinking on and off in the edit war. Let's address each section one at a time, cutting each one down to a summary of the arguments that are directly about US terrorism. Please join us in the Japan 1945 discussion to help promote the construction process.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected/unprotected

I don't think this article nees protection, it just needs people not to edit it disruptively. We clearly have a consensus for a shorter article; on that basis I've blocked Travb William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion on AN/I regarding this block as you are clearly in a content dispute by your participation here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The history shows that it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that editors need blocking and the article needs protection until they learn to stop the edit wars and start building consensus. Also, there is no consensus for a shorter article. That's a major part of the dispute, and in this case, size matters. Too much valuable stuff is being deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what material? Much of the material is already in other articles. Like the extremely long background sections not mentioning the US at all.Ultramarine (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Awful, awful block. WMC, either you are here as an editor or an admin (it seems to be the former). Please don't protect or unprotect the page or block editors if you are here to work on the article. Blocking an editor with whom you are in a content dispute is wildly inappropriate (per the blocking policy, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators" in case anyone is unsure about this). Whether or not "editors need blocking" is completely beside the point. If William M. Connolley is editing here he has no business blocking anyone (which is why his block of Travb was promptly overturned on AN/I).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That isn't quite so. Will can block people if they have clearly violated a rule, such as 3RR or repeated vandalism. When it comes to things like "admin's discretion" (e.g. disruption as in this case) it's quite different. John Smith's (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the edit-summary you will see that Trav was edit-warring with another user, not Will. The page was protected by Tariq, so in many respects Will was not engaged in the dispute when he blocked. In any case, the point is moot as Trav has been re-blocked. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have extended the WP:ANI discussion, not only to try to fix the wheel-war occurring over Travb's block, but also for WMC to explain his edits to the article after he protected it himself. Black Kite 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. One side calls the other that they disagree with as being "disruptive' and blocks them, to restore the content they want (which is really removing most of the best content). And they do so against consensus. The admin, protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping, if this abusive conduct continues. In the meanwhile I do intend to restore the legitimate content that was added through consensus, and which should never have been blanked without discussion in the very least, to to mention consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then I will restore the material, unless someone else does so earlier. I also note that the block aginst Trav is wrong on a number of levels, and that its only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished: not one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and doing so against consensus to boot.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

William Connelly says..."We have clearly have consensus for a shorter article." You are missing the point- there is no consensus whatsoever for the "shorter" version based on your mass deletions. Why are you pretending that there is? And why are you engaging in admin actions when you are clearly no longer an uninvolved and neutral administrator? ie:) after you blocked a user who was involved in an edit war with you, after you arbitrarily removed large swathes of material without sufficient prior communication with editors, or after you voted for the deletion of the article (which incidentally makes your exhortations to others to improve the article seem pretty contradictory). BernardL (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is consensu for the shorter version (it should be even shorter if it were up to me). If your complaining that a European green party editor is too right wing to edit this article, then it shows how far gone this article is. --DHeyward (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely consensus for a shorter version and for removal of off-topic material as well as material duplicated in other articles (the latter leads to the former). The false consensus headed up by SPTS and the various sockpuppets around here doesn't count for anythign at all. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is false. The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no "clear consensus" and WCM professed political values are not relevant. He used admin tools to make mass deletions, including some very reliably sourced and topical material, taking a side in the dispute rather than more patiently finding a proactive way to lead all parties in the dispute to a consensus. This mass deletion was immediately protested in a civil manner, by myself and another editor; and since several editors on this talk page and elsewhere have indicated disapproval of the mass deletions. WCM, who has long since forfeited a position of administrative neutrality, simply declared "clear consensus" when it never actually existed. All in all, it's the worst display of administrative incompetence I have ever witnessed.BernardL (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to talk competence, you could try getting my initials right. Spelling my full name is quite tricky, so I won't expect that of you, but most people manage "WMC" without trying too hard. There is now a chance to contructively edit this page: the worst of the abusive socks are now blocked. Restoring their edits as Travb does won't be viewed as construvtive, though. Thankfully no-one else is doing that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wont be viewed as constructive by yourself who removed them without adequate discussion and consensus, of course. But lets not speak for everyone here. I view the removal as not constructive and their return to be the proper and right thing to do. We can then talk about what constructive changes to make to the article without any advantage of admin tools in doing so.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have filed an RFC regarding Williams participation here, particularly his misuse of admin tools. Please keep it all civil. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is at all a good idea at this time (it's an escalation that will help nothing) and I certainly won't be participating in it. However I again ask WMC to refrain from using his admin tools on this article as he is clearly involved now (simply stating that he will not do this, per our policy, would be much appreciated and help to lessen tensions). We also need to drop the sniping tone and the accusations of bad faith from both sides. There were clearly socks here and that was bad, but it is wrong to suggest, as WMC seems to be doing, that anyone who restores the material he deleted is acting like a sockpuppet. Most of it was written by good faith contributors. For example nearly a year ago I spent several hours adding material to the Guatemala section based on a scholarly book and a scholarly article. It was there for about 10 months (and it did achieve relative consensus for addition in case anyone is wondering, I think even Ultramarine agreed to it at the time if I recall) and then was deleted a little while ago (fine). Likewise I added material to the Japan section at one point, all of which was deleted (though it's partially back now). If I argue to add those back in and eventually do so I don't think that means I am mimicking abusive socks. Probably it was not intended, but WMC's tone in the statement that restoring what he deleted "won't be viewed as constructive, though. Thankfully no-one else is doing that" comes off as a bit threatening, particularly when he has already blocked one user who went against his edits. Let's try to de-escalate the tension here rather than filing RfC's and issuing (what some might view as) veiled threats.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love to agree with you, however he has blocked two users he was in content disputes with, protected an article and edited it, and removed protection after it was instituted by an uninvolved admin. That is 3 cases of admin tools being abused in relation to the article, which is also why the RfC deals solely with this article and asks for remedies only on this article. If WMC would state he is going to be more civil and not use his admin tools at all on this article except in the case of BLP or WP:OFFICE, etc, items covered under exceptions, I would feel better about dropping it. However even people asking, unrelated people, what he was doing in those edits, have been called trouble makers. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-americanism categorization

There is nothing inherently anti-American about claiming U.S. gov't policies were significantly responsible in propagating and committing state terrorism. Several sources are known to praise the US in other respects. Richard Falk, for example, has praised the U.S. historical example in fostering international human law, although he is critical of what he regards as a progressive degradation of that tradition since WWII. Many analysts here are in fact acting out of concern for America, in some cases citing the what they feel are the negative domestic impact of state terrorist policies.BernardL (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly wrong to place this under the category "anti-Americanism" (did that happen at some point? I don't see it offhand). One can accuse the US of state terrorism without being anti-American (I agree with some of those accusations, and I am certainly not anti-American). Of course some of the folks making accusations might qualify as holding anti-American beliefs, but that is not at all intrinsically the case with this topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it happens periodically. BernardL was correct to revert that.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan and World War II

It is most unfortunate to see so much argumentation here but without a great deal of substance for argument. Too much polarization between camps causes blinding light between them. One thing for sure, a lot of information was taken out of the article very quickly. I looked and a lot looks very good!

I have only put back the Atomic Bombings of Japan. This is important information to the topic here and of State Terrorism. Much scholarship argues that the institutionalized form of terrorism, what we call "state terrorism" came about within the global system of international relations as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. Much of the literature talks about state terrorism as a form of foregn policy shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass desctruction in that war. That the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed for exmample by Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. I have read quite a bit about State Terrorism and this section provides and expository presentation to some of these ideas that are so central: the use of the atomic bombings and other bombings form the war are notable examples of State Terrorism. I can certainly expand it signifiantly, but I know the topic is that of the US role in State Terrorism. I also want to hear if people think its already too large. That seems to be part of the conflict going on now. So I won't add more information to it at this time. I do hope to have fruitful discussion by well meaning editors who share a knowlege and interest in this hot subject. But I know the article has a big hole if this is left out.DrGabriela (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the material not discussing state terrorism. Background and question of justification discussed in the main article on this. Where both sides are presented.Ultramarine (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for not taking out the whole section this time, but what you did remove, was talking about state terrorism. In fact you took out the heart of the issue: the explication of the thinking/basis behind the analysis of it being an example of state terror.

For example you took this out as not talking about state terror?!--"interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal...the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world..." That goes right to the heart of why its state terrorism, argued by those who make the claim per the definition of the concept. Likewise with this removal of yours: "The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...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...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration." As section on a topic is stripped of its richness and the article/content suffer if you insist to only leave in choppy sentences with writers making the claim, "x says this is state terrorism, y says this is state terrorism," etc. That is not how writing an encylopedia looks like. I urge restoration.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that your argument for including that material is entirely based on violation of WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that you do not know what WP:SYNTH says. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Jtrainer is absolutely correct.Ultramarine (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Now in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quot the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources mentions US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are stating no source in the Japan section mentions terrorism? If not then I repeat: "... in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quot the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis."--I Write Stuff (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that none of the sources I or material I removed made accusations of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"... in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quote the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis." If you can not I will revert the material in 24 hours, if you need more time then that to formulate your argument for why its synthesis, please let me know. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Material is irrelevant to this article. Does not mention state terrorism. Covered in a npov way with views from both sides in the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The text also states "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." None of the given sources "center around" this since they do not make accusations of or mention state terrorism.14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is Coady's reasoning for why its state terrorism? --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? Ultramarine (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You stated "None of the given sources "center around" this" so I am sure you have read Coady and know his reasoning to state he is not centering his argument around that. Now please provide his reasoning. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not an examination. If you have an argument regarding Coady, please state it. Coady was not one the sources and material removed.Ultramarine (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct it is not, and now that is has been shown that you are not familiar with the sources presented in the article, you have no basis to allege WP:SYNTH. Considering many sources as the item states, do base their argument on the targeting of innocence to achieve a political goal, the surrender of Japan, the flexing of muscle to the world, it seems you are false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. If you have any argument, then state it. Again, the text states "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." None of the given sources "center around" this since they do not make accusations of or mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Where is the ad hominem? You are alleging you read the sources and they do not contain an argument for the item being state terrorism based on the point presented which is "the targeting of innocence to achieve a political goal" which is clearly false. If you would like to continue this argument, then present the two quotes that are being merged to equal a final synthesized statement, and quote that statement. Any further red herrings and circular arguments will not be accepted until you substantiate your accusation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." Statement incorrect. None of the sources given discuss "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I can put this, are you stating that the sources in the Japan section, the ones with quotes provided that are explicitly stating the term state terrorism, are not making their accusation on the basis of the "targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal"? If so you are wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that none of the given sources for the text I cited mentions state terrorism. Not talking about the other material in the section that was not removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So the information in question is directly relevant to the information in the article, since the sources in the article discuss what is above, the "targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." So I guess it is then agreed that is fine to re-enter parts of it. I still argue against the line of morality as I just do not find that it should be included. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that "Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." should be removed, then that solves a major problem.Ultramarine (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like ""Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world." I do not like "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the given source for the target committee allegation is a primary document not accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The text should not say "some alleged that the Target Committee..." That was one of your edits you kept putting in. Rather that point is not in dispute. Its not a "some alleged" its an in disputed fact that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military target. That is an undisputed fact. Its an undisputed fact that a large civilian population was targeting to create a psychological and political effect around the world." And its also a fact that these facts are the heart of why scholars view them as incidents of State Terrorism. Howard Zinn, for example who concludes its State Terrorism, cites the statement of Kai Erikson to support his case that its state terrorism. Again, that is not any editor here making up any new argument on behalf of these scholars, its simply us editors presenting THEIR arguments. What is being objected to here is allowing us to report on their arguments. Their actual arguments are being disallowed. The heart of their explanation, their reasons, for WHY its state terrorism--according to then--are being removed. This is just another from of censorship to only allow their conclusion and opinion but not state their reasoning, their argument--which gives their opinion its great strength and makes it quite convincing. Its like saying a mathematician who states his conclusion so some math problem, and then cites his "proof" the basis of his reasoning, his calculations that lead him to the answer he is claiming, and cites this other mathematician's work that he bases his analysis on. Its absurd for us to then say that we can not include that. To do so robs it of its power, and robs the reader of an understanding of the basis for the claims. In anycase this was the long term version that was added by consensus, so unless there is a no consensus that it should not remain, it should not be taken out.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary documents not allowed. Also does not accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

False, primary documents are allowed, as long as we don't use them to to synthesize a new claim based upon them. And, yes, academics who we cite, DO accuse the US of state terrorism. They cite these facts as their argument. Therefore, their argument (not ours) are fine for inclusion. This rather basic to any reference source, but esp. an encylopedia. WP is not a dictionary.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary documents is used to synthesize. Does not make accusations of state terrorism. Also you cite it wrongly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong and this discussion has not concluded. It appears as you have no clue what WP:SYN says, I ask you re-read it, then it you still believe strongly that you state the following: The first quote being used, the second quote being used, and the final statement which is a violation of WP:SYN. Your failure to do so after being repeatedly asking to substantiate your claims is a prime example of disruptive editing. Until you can answer the question in response to your challenge, I will take this as a failure to support an accusation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the target committee quote, WP:PSTS states that primary sources should be avoided. The source for the allegations regarding the target committee is a primary source. Also cited incorrectly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, which is why we also source the person referring to it. Primary sources are not to be avoided in all of Misplaced Pages, they are to be avoided as a sole source since they are often assessed by the Wikipedian. Since we already covered that a secondary source, Coady et al. refer to the Targeting committee's choice, it passes the standard. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one source given for the target committee. No "person". Coady is not listed there. If you want to add what he states, then please do. Regardless, the current description of the target committee is incorrect.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for a more correct text including Coady's view?Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view on what the Target committee really said and means, according to you, it not relevant. Ironically when you make these arguments, its you who is engaging in SYN and OR. But also in fact you are wrong with your straw man argument: The claim is not that they had no military value, the claim cited by these scholars, correctly, it a strictly military target was specifically rejected in favor of creating a psychological impact by targeting a large concentration of civillians in to achieve a political purpose beyond Japan. Its this fact that scholars use as a key part of their argument that its qualifies as a classic example of state terrorism, though the use of weapons of mass destruction. But we can add many more sources, if that would help?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, primary sources should not be used. No scholar listed currently.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When the the text is readded shortly I will list a source or two that use it as its foundation for their argument. Will have to review them to make sure I am not adding incorrect ones. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not want to present your proposal on the talk page before editing the article. There are also two other problematic section "The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the United States' justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker writes in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue." and "The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...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...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?" None of these make accusations of state terrorism. So should be excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? We heard you and your argument has been responded to, and I think, refuted. Its a silly argument. For you to simply repeat it, without addressing the counter argument, smacks of bad faith disruptive editing to me. In a court of law when an attorney making an argument repeats the same question/point, the other lawyer will object, and judge will say 'asked and answered, move on." But you are not moving on with an intelligent discussion here, you are merely repeating the same argument as if repeating it changes anything. As it stands, your understanding of SYN has shown to be flawed. I need not repeat the arguments above that address your repeated claims as they have already been shown to be false.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about SYN regarding the primary source document. Regarding the target committee quote, WP:PSTS states that primary sources should be avoided. The source for the allegations regarding the target committee is a primary source. Also cited incorrectly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target. Regarding the other two sources, SYN do apply. Sources do not speak of state terrorism. Violates SYN to argue that they do.Ultramarine (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Red-herring re military target. That is not the claim. As far your other points repeated again, to borrow a phase, ""Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered." Move on.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Only a primary source is listed which accoring to WP:PSTS should be avoided. Exactly because they are difficult to interpret. The interpretation which cited the primary document is incorrect. The SYN objection has not been answered. Cannot really argue that we can cite any source as evidence for state terrorism if one source criticize the US in a nation for this.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The flaw is that no one here is making an interpretation. That is not our job--we agree here. We allow reliable third parties to do that and we cite their claims. That is what Howard Zinn does when he cites the statements that you removed, as the basis for his arguments that it was state terrorism and civillians were targeted. What is interesting though, with your own interpretations, is that they are rather unique to you: not a single qualified source has ever disputed the claim that is made (which you say is false). I think that should tell you something about your understanding of the historical facts here. Should not you edit in subject that you know something about?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard Zinn is not cited as a source for the statement regarding the target committee. If you want to add his view regarding the target committee, please state your proposal here. Your incivility and ad hominem has been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More red herrings. But I think I have a solution for your complaint. In addition to finding more sources that support the claims you say are wrong, why don't you show just one source that supports your claim? Your claim is that they are wrong, that is not what was done, not what the Target Committee says, that civilians were not purposely targeted, etc. If they are wrong, as you claim, then surely you can provide at least one reliable source that makes that argument? If not all we have is your personal opinion that goes against every single authority who has reviewed the question. If you are the only person in the world who believes something, do you think everyone else is wrong, and only you are right? Yes, its possible, but WP does not deal with "truth" per se. It deals with verifiable sourced material from expert sources. If they all say something, you can only counter with other sources. Not your own opinion. I note that the whole section was deleted on exactly this premise: personal disagreement with the experts. That is not valid WP policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultra asked for a non primary source, I presented one, however it did not support the exact date so I removed that. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Historian Howard Zinn who makes the claim of State Terrorism, cites this the sociologist Kai Erikson who talks abut it not being "'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...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?" Notice we are not choosing and picking Kai Erikson as a source himself, and quoting him to make the argument its state terrorism. That would be SYN. No, we are simply citing Howard Zinn's argument, who does quote KaiErikson, as the basis for his argument that its state terrorism. Therefore, it doesn't matter of Ultra says, "Kai Erikson doesnt claim State terrorism,' because Zinn does, and this is Zinn's argument. So that should also be restored. Zinn is not a primary source, either.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please state your proposed text here that explain the relationship and how it relates to state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did exactly that. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You could be on to something. Please state a proposal that combine the current Kai and Zinn material. Your text above needs some polishing if it is to replace the current text.Ultramarine (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, and addresses the actual issue. Thank you. See this source where Zinn uses him, and this quote here: If its just a question of making the connection clearer, I have no objection. I just want to honestly report the thinking/arguments, used by those who make the claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal "Howard Zini argues "If the word "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." He cites the sociologist Kai Erikson who wrote: "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." Zinn writes "in short, terrorism, condemned by governments when conducted by nationalist or religious extremists, was now being adopted as official policy. It was given legitimacy because it was used to defeat certain Fascist powers. But it kept alive the spirit of Fascism.""Ultramarine (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that adds too much gets slightly off topic, distracting from the atomic bombings. I'd make it much simple. Keep what is there in the original version as is, except add in, "Historian Howard Zinn cites sociologist Kai Erikson, who writes: "......" Then follow this up, with the Howard Zinn claim, of state terrorism, as exists in the article. Its as simple of this. No need to add in anything about Fascism, or other general comments about State terrorism (that belong on the main state terrorism page). This way we keep the text tight and focused only on the Japan bombings. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kai asks a question. The statement regarding fascism is Zinn answer to Kai's question.Ultramarine (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also note that Ultramarine is edit warring now with removing this material. If there is any consistency with how blocks are given to editor who keep edit warring, then a block against Ultra is indicated. Equal treatment for all edit warriors would go a long way to building good will among both sides that norms of fairness were in play here.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Added without consensus and proposal on the talk page first. However, some of the material seems fine and on topic. So this seem to have been constructive discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is sourced to Coady. Can somebody provide the quotes from Coady's book that support the claims made in this paragraph, namely "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world"...? Otherwise the text is OR. - Merzbow (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a quote would be good. Also, "Most" and "some" should be changed to Coady if that is what he is stating.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Out

This thread has gotten so long it discourages any new editors from joining the discussion and contributing to a consensus. Can somebody possibly distill the issue in dispute and create an NPOV statement of what needs to be decided? Can we either start a request for comments to get outside input, or take the question to the NPOV noticeboard? It would be nice if the "usual combatants" who frequent this page presented their brief statements and then stepped back and allowed other experienced editors to help form a consensus. Bickering is not productive. Jehochman 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time breaking down this thread also. The only issue I currently have with the text in this section as it is now relates to the paragraph I wrote about above, the one sourced to Coady and beginning with "Most interpretations..." I just want to see the quotes from Coady that support that text. - Merzbow (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. I don't believe that is the correct reference, but I'll have to check it out. I think the references/sections were messed up by the chopping that Ultra did. I'm not saying he did anything wrong intentionally, it was just a bit careless and as a result we have things wrongly cited. I'll have some time this week to go over these sources, and if necessary, add some more sources, to make sure everything is properly sources. Also, i think we have agreement above about restoring the Sociologist quote, referenced to Zinn's citing him for his argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Posada

No need to duplicate the general background material here. Covered in detail in the Posada article. So should be removed.

Exactly who is making accusations of US state terrorism? Cuba does not seem to do so according to this recent article: . Lots of OR where primary documents are cited also.Ultramarine (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many have asked you to do this in the past, but I will ask you yet again. Please don't post multiple threads at the same time calling for large deletions or additions in different sections. This creates chaos and contributes to the difficult atmosphere of this article. What harm does it do to discuss one issue at a time? We're in no rush here, and each issue requires serious discussion. Please, post on something you are concerned about, let discussion develop for a few days, and then take action. We all need to agree to an approach like this if we are going to get anywhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to be accurate. To quote WP:V: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Serious allegations should not remain if incorrect. Discussing a few problems at the same time hardly taxes resources. Any arguments regarding Posada materia?Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:V and the quotation from Jimbo. If there is something in particular in this article you feel is based only on 'I heard it somewhere' and which has no sources then point that out. Of course that Jimbo statement has nothing to do with the Posada issue you bring up. You are not claiming it is speculative, rather you think it duplicates other material and is not needed. There is no rush to delete that, likewise there is no rush to delete the background material from Operation Mongoose, to add in material about democide (which is a personal interest of yours), or to remove a quote from Britannica. In other words, you could have taken these on one at a time rather than posting them all within hours of each other. I'm asking you, and all of us, to slow down the pace of talk page sections in order to make it easier to collaborate. I think that is a very reasonable request.

This article have serious allegations. As such it is our responsiblity to assure accuracy and views from all sides. Like if anyone is accusing the US of state terrorism regarding Posada and democide material.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the Posada material, I feel that some background information is absolutely necessary for this and indeed all of the subjects covered in the article (otherwise it would just be a collection of wikilinks to other topics). It is entirely possible that the section could be trimmed somewhat though. I would recommend you post specific suggestions here. I don't support a massive deletion from that section at this time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ultramarine/Sandbox1 Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it covers the main points. If I were an anti-US type person, I'd want Venezuela has accused the US of hypocrisy on terrorism since the US "virtually" collaborated with convicted terrorist Luis Posada by failing to contest statements that Posada would be tortured if he were extradited to Venezuela removed since it seems so very weak (is it there to make the US seem guilty or the Venezuelas look silly? I'm genuinely unsure. Perhaps its worth keeping for that reason, uninterpreted) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support it as well. - Merzbow (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me look at it more closely in the next day or three (since we are in no hurry). When I do, would you mind Ultra if I edit within your sandbox (obviously you could undo any changes) or should I just suggest changes here on the talk page?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you present the alternative text in a section below my text in the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it into the article as an experiment. No-one has argued against it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not been working on this article for very long, so I just want to point out that it has been pretty standard here to put new or re-worked material in sandboxes (or on the talk page) and then give others a chance to comment on it before moving it into the article. Sometimes this has helped to ease edit warring by forcing folks to come to an agreement before changing the article itself (it's one of the few tactics that has worked in that regard). Because I specifically said I would take a look at it shortly and probably propose some alternative or rework it, it would have done no harm to hold off on adding it into the article for a couple of days. I could have simply argued against it in some way in order to prevent it from going in, but I wanted to look at the changes more closely and come up with a thoughtful response to Ultramarine's proposal. Again, we're not in a hurry, and some allowance should be made for a little bit of discussion of significant changes, particularly when a good-faith editor specifically asks for some time to do this. I'm not going to undo your edit or anything (I'll still look at the changes more closely in the next day or so), but in the future I would appreciate it if you give folks who want to mull over a proposed change a couple of days to do so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not been a standard although it has occurred occasionally. You have made many edits and spent considerable time on other subjects since I presented the proposal so I find it somewhat strange that you have not had time to comment on my proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

About two months ago on this page I wrote:

“I have never liked the Cuba section much. A major weakness is that Cuban sources: ie: Castro, Allarcon, Gramma, Radio Havana, Cuba Solidarity, are being given too much weight. Another weakness, I think, is the case study of Posada Carrilles; it would be better to abbreviate that case to at most a major paragraph and then link to his main article for the more gritty details.”

I still believe we should try to keep the Posada section to at most a major paragraph. However since that time my feelings on the importance of the Posada issue have changed somewhat since I have discovered what I think is more relevant material on U.S. involvement with him that has not been previously covered by the article. (See the association that McSherry draws between him and CORU below.)

Misplaced Pages policy exhorts editors to try to find the “last word” on the issues. We should try to research as exhaustively as possible. This attempt fell short in the recent re-write of the Posada section by Ultramarine. An authoritative source, Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive is quoted, but it was not necessarily Kornbluh’s last word on the issue. Moreover Kornbluh’s comment that Posada is “our terrorist” was removed. The quote that Ultramarine selected comes from a Nation article from May-June 2005. Therein, Kornbluh indicates that all of the relevant information had not been publicly released. Further writings by Kornbluh are worth considering on the matter, not that they suggest drastic changes, but they do contain pertinent information and do evidence further U.S. links. I would suggest that more than a mere passing mention of Posada as an operative is appropriate, he was trained at Fort Bening, and later became an explosives expert and intelligence trainer. Also the sheltering of Posada in El Salvador as a director in Oliver North’s contra supply network following his escape from Venezuelan prison is probably worth considering of inclusion. These are not just random details that belong in his biographical article, they are details that concern significant U.S. association with him. The following two pages were issued at later dates than the Nation article and encompass subsequent releases of classified information: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/index.htm, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB202/index.htm

Even more important I think is Kornbluh’s testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee here which contains an even stronger tone concerning the unwillingness of the U.S. to disclose vital information about Posada’s activities. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/kor111507.htm To quote Kornbluh: “BUT THESE DOCUMENTS I HAVE SHARED ARE SIMPLY THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG OF EVIDENCE—MUCH OF WHICH REMAINS SECRET AND STORED IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES.”

I note that historian J. Patrice McSherry has harshly criticized the U.S. for witholding information on this case and others related to operation Condor. Here is some evidence from McSherry concerning Bosch-Posada terrorism and U.S. links,which should also be incorporated in the paragraph.

“Bosch was the leader of a coalition of violent anti-Castro organizations named CORU, Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations. CORU was formed during a 1976 meeting in Bonan, Dominican Republic that brought together all the paramilitary and terrorist anti-Castro organizations. There, leaders decided to unify their forces under one umbrella. Interestingly, that meeting took place in June, at the same time the Condor meetings in Santiago. According to several sources, the CIA had actively approved of the Bonan meeting- and perhaps even instigated it- and encouraged CORU to “punish” Castro for Cuban intervention in Angola. The FBI was fully aware of CORU’s terrorist acts. CORU carried out dozens of bombings in the Western hemisphere (including the United States) in 1976. All five of the Cuban terrorists involved in the Letelier-Moffin assassinations were CORU members.” (McSherry, Patrice J. “Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield 2005, 158)

"Moreover, an FBI agent involved in the Letelier case confirmed that Posada had participated, along with other Cuban terrorists, in a meeting in the Dominican Republic in which both the airline bombing and the Letelier assassination were planned...Declassified CIA documents also confirmed that Posada was a CIA informant until at least June 1976, when the meeting occurred." ]BernardL (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographical details like an being an explosives expert and intelligence trainer belong on the main article about him. If anyone has made allegations that this is evidence of US state terrorism, then we could include it. Already mentioned that Kornbluth thinks that there may be more material in the archives. The McSherry allegations seem to the same as those already mentioned by Kornbluth, "lose ties between CIA and FBI officials and allies inside the Cuban exile movement enabled the bombing to go forward--despite ample intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented it. When the entire file is made public, as it should and must be, the degree of US responsibility will be more apparent." So I see nothing not already covered.Ultramarine (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I made my own attempt to trim the Posada section. I kept Ultra's intro, and went through the refs carefully, only keeping claims relevant to the US government - Posada - terrorism connection, while removing POV language. The resulting size of the text about splits the difference. - Merzbow (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much problem with the changes. The claims about Posada's presence at the meeting in Bonan are backed up by an important historian from her award-winning book. They have been included. BernardL (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. The prose and citation formatting could be improved (which probably should not be the top priority with this article) but this version is quite serviceable and is an improvement over the lengthier version it is replacing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible problem is that we now have a Cuba section that does not even mention Orlando Bosch, who was the leader of CORU.BernardL (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Mongoose

Lots of background material not making accusations of state terrorism. All duplicated in the Operation Mongoose article. Should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The background material is topical and not excessive, and flows well with the rest. There are three fairly tight paragraphs, each one representing a different phase.BernardL (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For wordsmithing reasons, I would like to replace the first two sentances in Operation Mongoose:

"A prime focus of the Kennedy administration was the removal of Fidel Castro from power. To this end it implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations against the island ."

with

In 1961, the Kennedy administration implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations intended to overthrow the Communist regime in Cuba, including its leader Fidel Castro.

Is that wording supported by the current source? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Democide

Democide has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism. So the article should have a short summary of such research and US role.Ultramarine (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Terrorism, state terrorism, and international terrorism remain without a single internationally accepted definition, but Britannica defines terrorism as systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

Britannica is not the final word on what terrorism is. Certainly less important than UN documents. Also talks about terrorism, not state terrorism. Britannica quote should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be replaced with the definition section that was present before, so the reader can fully understand the underlying goals and causes of terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about the intro. Cannot have ten paragraphs about the definition of terrorism in the intro. Regarding a separate section, why duplicate definition of terrorism and state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"duplicate"? no. give the reader an understanding of the framework of terrorism, its causes and goals is however important. I do not support removing a definition from the intro, since the article will contain no definition. Especially considering I have already seen you attempt to make the argument that none exist and so the article should not, how odd that you are calling for the last one to be removed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism so it is wrong to list one in the intro. Britannica is also less important than UN texts. Also, that one is about terrorism, not state terrorism. The earlier section simply duplicated word for word some parts of definition of terrorism and state terrorism. Was incomplete and the subject better covered in the main articles.Ultramarine (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am not sure what you mean by "no agreed upon definition" Do you mean the world has not come together as a consensus to define the term? Or are you again discussing legal terms, of which this is not a legal dictionary. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal or scholarly agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, if the concept of Red terror can be included in the article Terrorism in Russia as Terrorism in modern sense, then what is the problem in this article? If you want to remove real SYNTH, then go remove the mention of red terror from Terrorism in Russia article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss possible problems in other articles there. Also, I was not discussing SYN here.Ultramarine (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that there is no "scholarly agreement" is also a red herring. We are not discussing the theory of state terrorism, that is for that article. We are discussing allegations made by WP:RS and WP:V sources regarding state terrorism and the United States. Presenting some idea of definitions used is helpful to the reader. I am sorry you do not agree, so I will simply state I disagree with this proposal unless the section on definitions is readded. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not presented inaccurate or misleading information. There is no agreement so that is what should be stated. Those more interested can easily click and go to the main articles. Britannica quote in particular is bad since it is less important than UN document and does not discuss state terrorism but terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree "Misplaced Pages should not presented inaccurate or misleading information" which is why multiple definitions should be presented. We are here to give the reader information, not withhold it because the world has not fully agreed upon it, like such a thing will ever happen. The end result is however that dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as newspapers and academics have been able to use the term, so it exists and some understanding of it should be presented. If you would like, and can find a source, following the definitions with "However no universally agreed upon definition exists." would be just fine. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again we were talking about the intro. Cannot discuss all the numerous definitions there. Or pick a "winner". Those interested can easily go to definition of terrorism and state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your confusion, and need to repeat that we are discussing the intro, is that you fail to see the importance of the material. Some working basis of what terrorism is considered to be, classified as, etc. needs be included in the article. So I will not support removal of the only working definition, classification, etc. from the intro, without it being replaced with a definitions section, one that was removed without consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We should not have a misleading intro. There is no agreement so it is inaccurate to pick Britannica as the correct definition. In particular as it does not discuss state terrorism and is less important than UN documents. Regarding a definition section, maybe there could be a short summary with those readers more interested being free to read definition of terrorism and state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't like using Britannica as a source, even if it is identified. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4 Ultramarine (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not like it, seems patronizing. The insistence that there is no universally agreed upon definition is pointless, most things are not universally defined. I think you are putting to much into your own idea of what "state terrorism" is and not accepting it is simply terrorism carried out by a state. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced regarding no agreement. The UN thinks this is a serious problem. Any concrete objection? Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not a wing of the United Nations. Objection listed above. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with listing two or three concise definitions of "state terrorism" from reliable sources. Or "state-sponsored terrorism". I don't think this has to be in the lead; the "Definitions" section is fine. - Merzbow (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The UN is a political body. Naturally, we prefer academic definitions of terrorism to those of the United Nations, the United States, or Hamas. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? UN conventions are legally binding. No agreement among academics regarding terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we do not use political as opposed to academic definitions. That's a long standing interpretation of reliability. If there's no agreed definition, we use the most common one in the lead. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which policy are you citing? No agreement regarding which definition is the most common one.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic working definitions are fine to include, and necessary for the framework of the State Terrorism, linked to the main State Terrorism article. Its a fallacy to say just because States have not come to an international consensus on a legally adopted definition, that we can not have a working definition as to what Terrorism or State Terrorism is. Lets not conflate the two, and lets not overdue this 'no agreement" bit, as it give its undue weight.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not present inaccurate or misleading information and there is no agreed defintion or agreed "basic working definitions"Ultramarine (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is not an agreed upon definition of vegetable or Science fiction either. Yet somehow, those articles manage. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put aside the discussion of what to have in the lead and concentrate on first finding definitions. Given that we have articles called "...state terro–rism..." and plenty of sources that accuse various states of it, it's difficult to believe that no reliable source has attempted to define "state terrorism" as opposed to just "terrorism". A quick Google search of "state terrorism definition" pulled up this from some professor. I'm sure more can be found. - Merzbow (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitional discussions abound in the literature. It is common for authors to reformulate a definition of terrorism that encompasses both state and non-state actors, feeling it is more morally consistent. From Jeffrey A. Sluka's introduction to the anthology Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror..."A good dictionary definition of terrorism that avoids the ideological subterfuge of excluding state terror is 'the policy of using acts inspiring great fear as a means of ruling or conducing political opposition.' But if we want a specific definition of state terrorism that distinguishes it from anti-state terrorism, a good definition is that state terror is the use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (ie: a means of repression)." (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,2)BernardL (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a paper from, Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, by two academics Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella II that does a good job at presenting virtually all the definitions of terrorism in one place: There is an "Academic Consensus Definition," btw. All the variations of the definitions are just really minor tweaks, they all talk about violence that is used to instill fear (terror) that generally targets civillians and for political ends. These aspects not the controversial at all. The controversy is who get stuck with the label, esp. when it comes to affixing the term to State actors whose actions fit the basic definition of terrorism. We should not get stuck by this. Ultra likes to quote Kofi Anan, so I'll quote him here, too, "Regardless of the differences between governments on the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one’s cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your paper is talking about terrorism, not state terroirsm. If anything we should quote this " The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"".Ultramarine (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you read the article in question, Kofi is arguing that the fight over a legal definition is not required because states killing civilians is illegal under the Geneva Convention. This does not mean obviously that it does not exist, just that its already covered elsewhere legally, and in a capacity for the U.N. to act. This is similar to the other quote I provided you on the Japan section where they argue that just because it saves lives, does not mean its not terrorism, you had trouble accepting this concept. To go one step further the article explains that the problem is not that its hard to define if something is terrorism, or that no definition exists, but that: "In addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act." and further: "the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning terrorism have been hampered by the inability of member states to agree on a comprehensive convention that includes a definition" So the stopping block is not clearly the definition as an entire convention is being works on, the contents of that convention are the road block. One last part, the article specifically states: There now appears to be a global consensus on what terrorism is: attacks targeting civilians. So its clear state terrorism is states committing terrorism, so states attacks targeting civilians. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the important difference between when he is speaking of terrorism and state terrorism. Terrorism is a legal concept covered in many conventions. State terrorism is not. Also no need for such a concept since other concepts and laws already exists which cover this. Regarding you point that the absence of a legal concept does not mean that the concept does not exist. Many different non-legal proposals. But the absence of state terrorism as a legal concept is certainly one of the more important things to mention when discussing state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that when discussing state terrorism it is important, which is why it should be added to the article on state terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request mediation? - Straw Poll

Many of the commments on the AfD have suggested that some type of oversight might be helpful in guiding the editors of this article in their attempts to improve it. As a straw poll, is there agreement that a request for mediation at this time would be appropriate? Please note whether or not you would agree to participate in mediation:

• agree TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree Ultramarine (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree, though I think it might be hard to find someone willing to take this on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree depending on type of mediation, what they will examine and if everyone agree's to follow the decision recommended. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree I was also thinking of an WP:RfC. Whatever works. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Clearly more outside help is required. Becks, given the amount of talking there's been I don't think RfCs will change much. John Smith's (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• agree Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree The more eyes on this the better. We're clearly not getting anywhere with the regulars. Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - Merzbow (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• agreeBernardL (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• AgreeGiovanni33 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• This page needs dispute resolution; I would be happy to see mediation go ahead and would be bound by the results. I'm probably not going to be a part of it unless dragged in, since (despite what many may think) I'm not all that interested in the content of this page William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Same here. Mediation is a good thing, but it would waste time if I was directly involved in it - the process rarely works if too many editors are joined in. If the main disputing parties were involved I would abide by any final decision. John Smith's (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree In most cases I am all for mediation, and over the years I have pushed for mediation in many forms on this page. But the mediation has failed repeatedly, and will continue to fail. The names have changed here, but the tactics are all the same. I think the only solution is arbitration. Despite the official rule that Arbcom does not get involved with content disputes, the Arbcoms rulings show that they actually do actively get involved in content disputes. (see Great Irish Famine as one example) (travb) Inclusionist (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  It is highly likely arbitration will be refused unless formal mediation is tried first. Try to file a case if you don't believe me. And have there been formal mediation sessions on this page? If so I would appreciate some links. If not then it should be tried. Informal mediation is sometimes quicker in getting a resolution, but with complex matters often does not go far enough. Also, Trav, you're a recent addition to the page (or have been away for some time) so I hope you won't veto mediation if you are named as a party. If you don't want to participate then I hope you will abide by any decisions agreed upon in mediation. John Smith's (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I bolded the above text, which you must have missed: I have pushed for mediation in many forms on this page I am not "recent addition to the page".

John Smith, first of all the only formal mediation and straw polls on this page were initiated by me, see the new page I created: Talk:American_terrorism/Past_disagreements#Past_mediation_attempts. I have been editing this page since at least 13 August 2006. As one of the most active editors on this page for two years, I am certain that mediation will fail in this case, because there are two diametrically opposed beliefs, with no common ground. When the mediation fails again, I will call an arbitration.

At this point, the animosity is so strong against me among the deletionists, that if I suggested this page be deleted they would object (I have found this out before with other suggestions).

But below is my suggestion, which is from a Arbcom ruling.

The formal mediation I see is from 2006 - Arbcomm would want something more recent then that. If mediation failed back then you should have gone for arbitration. John Smith's (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate suggestions to avoid Arbcom and mediation

Direct quote from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine:

"Remedies: The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage."

Editors here agree to have three to five administrators mentor this article. How about it? Inclusionist (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

1. Deletion of material from April 2008 onwards.
2. Title Inclusionist (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The issues that require mediation need to be agreed upon before a request is made. Please add to the list above. Do not make POV comments, just insert the main disputes briefly. If you need to make a comment write down here. I have made one suggestion. John Smith's (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that the eighth AfD is closed as Keep, lets get back to our regularly scheduled battle discussion. Hopefully mediation will work. I held off pending that closure, and maybe others did also. Maybe the AfD also helped dispel some tension. — Becksguy (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, we seem to be making progress now, so is mediation necessary? It may just serve to re-add rancor. Perhaps we should put this on hold until (hopefully never) things fall apart again? - Merzbow (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Various titles this article has had

From the earliest in 2005 to the current.

1. Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
2. State terrorism by the United States
3. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
4. Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
5. State terrorism and the United States
6. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

— Becksguy (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Many more: See Talk:American_terrorism/Past_disagreements#Name_Change_debate about the dozens of pages about this.

Something Giovanni33 and others should probably take a look at

] Jtrainor (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did read it. It says clearly, "it is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it."The cited information added was relevant, directly on topic, well referenced and a product of collaborative editing among many editors of different POV's. The result was a compromised text that on the whole was pretty good. So removal should be done with equal consensus, esp. if its cited, and in light of the other facts that it went through for its inclusion, and the fact that its a long standing part of the article. I reject the notion that an editor can come and based on POV bias, delete have of it, until that editor is convinced its valid. Consensus works both ways.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The editors change, the acronyms change, but the true underlying intentions and POV stay exactly the same. Inclusionist (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Synth debate

I started a discussion in a neutral place to determine if the term "state terrorism" must appear in a source for it to be used anywhere in the article. In 2 days I will check again for the results and report back. This should put an end to the question of its required or not. I would prefer if anyone locates the debate that they do not chime in, this way we can keep it free from influence. --I Write Stuff (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Let wait and see what some neutral uninvolved editors who are experts on the issue of SYN, think of the issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Ultramarine could not help but inject himself into the question. Hopefully other will allow the discussion to proceed unhindered. It seems the consensus is "state terrorism" is not required since a section in this article on Hiroshima, would have the section about Hiroshima, meaning information about what happened, even if not in the source alleging state terrorism is permitted. This is of course barring that you are not attempting to say the second source, the supporting one, is actually making any allegation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are stuck with the determination before Ultra and DHeyward appeared on the page, meaning "state terrorism" is not required in the source as long as its providing background information and the allegation is not attributed to any source not directly making it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its good to see that our previous consensus on the matter was correct, and that Ultramarine, et. all are mistaken about their understanding of SYN. The words "State Terrorism' NEED NOT be in the source if its in context and provides relevant background material to the issues discussed by reliable sources who say the incidents in question are instances of state terrorism by the US. I hope this puts this dead horse to rest.Giovanni33 (talk)

I'm not sure you're representing the debate there properly. There are two items in question, that BlueBoar summarizes well: a) for a topic to be included in the article, is it necessary that some source be provided that accuses the US government of terrorism (equiv. to "state terrorism", of course), and b) given "a", can background material be included from other sources that don't make the accusation? The consensus in the debate appears to support both "a" and "b". I have no problem now with "b" as long as the background material does not overwhelm the sources that make the accusation, as they clearly did in the longer version of this article (undue weight). - Merzbow (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading your comment carefully, you do appear to mention both the points "a" and "b" so I withdraw my first sentence above. The part we'll have to work on is, of course, the details about the scope and nature of the background material allowable. - Merzbow (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I'm glad we have settled this thorny issue. I always thought you were right when you stated the need for clear acceptance of mechanical criteria/standards. I think the standards set by policy as articulated above will help to diffuse a lot of previous areas of contention.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not solved if claiming that WP:SYN should not be followed. If we have background material, then it must be NPOV and represent both sides on an issue. Which I have always stated. Obviously the background material should not overwhelm the article like it did previously.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No one ever claimed such a thing. A group of non involved editors who have dedicated their time to Misplaced Pages by assisting in understanding and guiding on the issue of WP:SYN have stated the term is not needed. Like yourself I agree the background material should not out weigh the allegation material, however out weigh does not mean simply "contain more characters" it simply means it should not be overly verbose.--I Write Stuff (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it is not needed in background material. If the background material is longer than the actual allegations, then is overly verbose and the reader should be refered to the appropriate article for more information. For example, the article earlier had 15 long background paragraphs about alleged human rights violations in the Philippines by various dubious sources including an email transcript. Not one of them mentioning the US.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that the sources did not state the magic term, the real issue is it was overly verbose, however that does not mean butcher it, and further it does not mean, high character count is equal to overly verbose. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Verbose" certainly includes length.Ultramarine (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however more specifically I oppose an arbitrary ratio imposed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has argued for anything arbitrary. Another point regarding background material is that it most obviously be NPOV and present views from all sides equally. Like including government responses.Ultramarine (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the background section, like the entire article, should follow NPOV. In that sense however I disagree that government responses should be in the background as that would be POV, as the background should come before the argument and should be free of either side. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If the background only presents the view from one side, like those critical of the government, then it obviously it is not "free of either side". NPOV requires the views of all sides equally. That includes government responses to criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Policies issues put to rest

The admin who carefully reviewed all the arguments of the deletionists, provided a penetrating analysis sof the debate over the Afd and has clarified several long standing policy disputes about it. He considered all the arguments presented, juxtaposed against core WP policies, which now clarified, should help stabilized article by putting to rest the mis-understanding many of the WP policies advanced by Ultramarine, DHeyward, et al. They follow below:

• First, it has been put forth that the article is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, because "conflating must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space." This is unpersuasive. Many articles and lists cover issues widely separate in time and space because they have something in common. Synthesis would only occur if it were a novel idea - original research - to group the various incidents covered here under the label "state terrorism". As demonstrated by the section "General allegations against the US", however, various notable people have had this idea before, and I cannot therefore detect any irremediable WP:SYNTH problems.

• Second, the article has been said to violate WP:NPOV. POV-tainted content (e.g. "This is a list of terrorist atrocities committed by the US") can be remedied by editing, obviously, so deletion would be only warranted if the very concept of the article makes it impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. The only reason provided in this discussion why this is supposed to be the case is that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism". That may be so, but this article can (and should) only report that various significant people have reliably voiced the opinion that such-and-such is state terrorism by the US; but not that these incidents are indeed state terrorism. In short, no credible argument has been made that no neutral article can ever be written about this subject. (I'm not addressing the WP:COATRACK argument here because that essay is not part of the core policy, but see below.)

• Third, only one person seems to doubt that we can write a verifiable article about this issue, and he does so by casting doubt on the sources used as being "extremist and fringe". This ignores that an article dedicated to covering allegations may well cover allegations by extremist and fringe people, if these people's views are considered significant and well-sourced. In any case, the argument is not made that the subject matter is irremediably unverifiable. Accordingly, no core policy mandates the deletion of this article, because its deficiencies (if any) can be remedied by editorial processes which include editing or merging.

My last step is to determine whether any of the "delete" arguments are so strong (i.e., well-founded in policy), or the "keep" arguments so weak, that the "delete" arguments decisively outweigh the "keep" arguments even though there is no supermajority (our usual rough approximation of a consensus) to delete the article. I do not find that to be the case. To mention only the most significant arguments:

• The argument that the article is a battlefield has never to my knowledge been accepted as a reason to delete an article. Otherwise, we would have very little coverage of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East or much else. If an article is too heavily contested, less destructive remedies such as protection, blocking edit warriors, or issuing general sanctions remain available. We have successfully dealt with Liancourt Rocks in this manner.

• As to the WP:COATRACK argument, a coatrack article is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to bashing B. The present article is supposed to be about allegations of state terrorism by the US, and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack, and in any case, a coatrack article does not usually need deletion - just editing.

• The "keep" arguments (apart from those I have already discounted) generally focus on this article meeting our inclusion criteria, such as WP:N and WP:V. These are not particularly weak arguments.

In sum, after evaluating the arguments that have been made, I conclude that not only is there no consensus to delete this article, but that we have a significant majority favouring to keep the article, and that the "delete" opinions are mostly not well founded in policy and precedent. The consensus emerging from this discussion, therefore, is to keep the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reflecting on WP policy and putting these confusions about it into the past, as we move forward. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the problems mentioned here were and are to some extent still valid: .Ultramarine (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala Section

I agree that the Guatemala material was too long, and I understand the impetus of some to reduce it, but I think consensus is clear that it we never meant to be permanently removed in whole, without anything left there in its place. I have moved most of the material to a "daughter" article, on the Civil War and the US role, but some of that material should go back into this article. Perhaps an interested editor can restore some of the best and more relevant parts to the section. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I put a bit back in, probably needs some editing, and the section is not yet telling the whole story according to the most reliable sources.BernardL (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. But its a good start, at starting fresh with that section.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, as long as we're careful about what more we add. - Merzbow (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag

Why there is an original research tag at the top of the article? All the information are properly referenced and if anyone want the tag to stay, he/she should identify the passages which are original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long argument over certain passages, such that some people would not accept they are OR, whilst others insisted they were. There has been a large removal of material so far, so it may be that these offending extracts are gone. Maybe some of the editors who have raised OR in the past can help answer Otolemur's qn. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the times the tag was added was in response to an 'Opposing Views' section that contained few sourced items and some analysis not directly attribuatble to the sources. That material is gone. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Opposing views section is still present. If there is problem with this section, then this section either needs deletion or appropriate tags should placed in this section, not at the top of the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the Opposing views section is completely irrelevant in this article. The section contains a little piece of information:

Empirical studies (see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.

Why is this information relevant in this article. This article documents the allegation against the country for sponsoring terrorism in certain times and certain places. Why the information "democracy killed fewer people than dictatorship" has anything to do here? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in 'opposing view' to the Chomsky statement about US being biggest source of terror? I have tried and failed to convince Ultramarine that 'other guys done worse' is in general not appropriate line of discussion for the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems weord to me that the opposing views section is so small. I would imagine that the "official" US position is that they don't do terrorism. Backing away from that there is presuably a saner core that would say "OK, we do terrorism, but its a hard world and the end result is worth it". There must be plenty of people quotable on that. Or so I would have thought; perhaps admitting terrorism is so hard that few people can be found for a defence. But even the (admittedly somewhat implausible view) that the US doesn't do terrorism must have plenty of official sources for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right Connolley. The US and its client state agents who directly commit state terrorism do have responses, and I've pointed them out before and even provided some sources, but they were ignored, in favor of novel OR and off topic points advanced by Ultramarein as "opposing views." They don't really provide any opposing views to the claims. There are opposition views can be found in several forms: denial, saying they were doing something else and had no control over excesses, that is was self defense, or outright admission with a justification along the lines of it being necessary not to play by the rules. For example when presented with evidence that tied high state officials to the paramilitary death squads--in 1967 Mario Sandoval Alarcónr leader of (MLN), an extreme anti-Communist party, stated the following rational to the New York Times: ‘The Army was demoralized last year until we organized the White Hand…. he terrorism of the guerrillas…has forced the government to adopt a plan of complete illegality, but this had brought results.” In a fraudulent 1974 election Sandoval became the Guatemalan vice president and served until 1978. In 1982 he other MLN party officials defended the party’s nickname (“the party of organized violence”) to U.S. newsmen, stating: “Well organized violence is something, you see, organized sound is melody. Organized violence would be strength. Sometimes you have to face the truth. Or that was the same in Nagasaki, in Hiroshima. You have to kill people.” So you see there are responses to the allegations when they were presented to the perpetrators. But as you can guess, this doesn't make them look too good.:)I will also point out that with in the literature analysts explain that the State found terrorism very effective, adn that it was at a disadvantage by following international law which places all kinds of constraints on the use of force-which do not apply to insurgent terrorists. So basically its argued that they have to fight fire with fire, etc. Giovanni33 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is context, since the article is about allegations, the justifications should be in relation. For instance in the Japanese section, the argument put forth after the bombing was that it would save lives, however this is not addressing the issue of terrorism, as it could have been needed, yet still be terrorism. I posted sources discussing this which is probably now buried in the archives. Saying its was needed is not saying it was not terrorism, so its not really an "opposing view" its a view in agreement with an explanation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Democide is seen as equivalent as state terrorism. Could be seen as a response to Chomsky's claim. But does not have to. The statement stands on its own. This is not an article that should only have US negative material. Agree that the section needs expansion.Ultramarine (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am horribly lost if your comment is addressing mine or not, if not please refactor and place under the person you are replying to, if it is, please clarify the relation to my comments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you were talking about the democide material since it it mentioned at the top. If not, then it applies to those who did. Regarding the more general issue, I do not think there are many official sources stating "Hiroshima was not state terrorism" etc. Since "state terrorism" is not a legal concept and has no agreed definition, then an allegation is little more than an perjorative personal opinion. Therefore such allegations are probably just ignored by the state department etc. The same probably applies to more serious scholars who may defend against charges that it violated international law, was military unnecessary, or was not morally justified, but ignore the pointless "state terrorism" personal opinion allegations.Ultramarine (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing Williams comments, which is why I posted somewhere below his. As for why you assume the arguments are ignored, I can see some reason, however I do not think they are ignore, there is just not much of a defense a government can make that will not exempt similar behavior from others in the future. But neither of us know why, so its all just speculation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it is difficult to defend against a concept without an agreed definition. "No, this is not state terrorism according to the definition we use" "Yes, it is according to our definition" etc.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why as a policy we rely on a reliable source to be reliable. To have done research and not be talking crazy. We as Wikipedians should not be presenting an argument/definition that is all encompassing. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is something else that might be appropriate for the "opposing views" section. Personally I don't think we need such a section. But here s a discussion of a related matter:"...the judgment of whether an act is terrorist or not should be made independently of, and without reference to, the motives or self-perceptions of the perpetrators of that act. For example, the agents of state terrorism rarely see themselves as engaged in terrorist acts. Even the more open minded and morally sensitive of state officials will concede only that the state (especially if it is a liberal democratic state) is sometimes guilty of unfortunate and condemnable "excesses" or human rights "abuses," but never of terrorism. Such a view would effectively exculpate the liberal democratic state of the US from the charge of nuclear terrorism in dropping bombs on the overwhelmingly civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! The untenability of such an exculpation should be obvious. Once we arrive at a definition of terrorism that is balanced, neutral and objective, we can then more intelligently discuss its efficacy and ethics."Giovanni33 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw mans are not needed. Your view that the article does not need an opposing view section is interesting. Please elaborate.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

over

Now that the drama of the AfD is over, let's try to get back and focus conversation on this page to be solely about the content of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - Just kidding. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags

I come to these, well, lets say "controversal" pages often to check the tags. I keep seeing people placing tags on pages and never actually giving a good reason why or starting a discussion. There is no POV discussion going on, and the article is well sourced. It can be seen that it is a work in progress but we should not leave tags in place that aren't true to the current status of the article but instead to a slanted reader/editor's views. Hooper (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a second note, is there anyway to screen so that only non-American editors can edit on this so that we can kill any perception pushers from either politically based agendas side? Now that would be amazing. Hooper (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I have an exception, originally being from Berkeley, California but still living in the San Francisco Bay Area? We like to consider our People's Republic here as having politically seceded from the rest of the US. As such we are rather free from nationalist biases. We could also try to be more inclusive by adopting restrictions based on this page's list of cities. Those in the top ten from the first list are allowed (I note SF is #9), and those from the second list are not. Its better than banning all editors from the US.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess who also lives in the SF Bay Area? Muhahaha! Anyways, I have no objection to removing the tags for now. - Merzbow (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You live around here? Where? We should have a mini wiki-meet some day, then. Play chess?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Down in the South Bay. I noticed there is a Bay Area WP mailing list, but I haven't checked if they are organizing meets. Will take a look when I get a chance. (Oh, and I'm terrible at chess). - Merzbow (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they had a meet in SF, and it was pretty good. Lots of famous wikipedians attended, including Jimbo. When WP's headquarters moves to SF, I'll have to go visit.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance and style in the Japan section

The Japan section currently has only one opposing argument, essentially that it was more an act of war than terrorism. The argument is very brief and unexplained. It would be good to have further arguments against the atomic bombings being terrorism included, for balance. In the debate over the atomic bombings article there is a section on how the bombings were part of total war, arguing that because of Japan's "total war" approach everyone in the cities were militarised (not civilian), even women and children were working on the war effort. It also states that the cities were of special military importance. Both of these are potential arguments against the theory that it was terrorism because the cities were civilian targets, which is the main argument currently given in this article. However, as far as I can tell none of these sources mention that this is a reason it wasn't terrorism (they don't mention terrorism at all), just that they weren't civilian targets. I don't think it would be original research to include these sourced arguments after the "targeting of innocents" sentence. While they don't mention terrorism they are direct contradictions of the existing statement that the targets were civilian. I don't have a personal opinion on whether the abombings were terrorism, but I'd like to see all the relevant arguments represented here. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also still think that the Japan section (in fact, most of the sections in the article) could do with more condensing, away from being a list of quotes and towards being fewer, longer paragraphs with more logical flow (supported by the same logical flow being present in the sources). That would make them much more readable and more encyclopedic in style. I wrote a draft in this style, but received little relevant feedback. However, I see now that it's hard to achieve this kind of improvement (especially in one big go) on such sensitive topics without people mistaking it for original research or synthesis. I'll look at doing it one bit at a time so each change can be discussed separately. I also think that one editor's suggestion of an "acts of war" section that includes both the atomic bombings and firebombings like Dresden would be a logical improvement (because the same arguments have been applied to both), but again this seems restricted by perceived original research. If these things have been unarguably linked (in a way that WP:OR would clearly not be an issue) in reliable literature and an editor is aware of it, it would be good to hear about it.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that under the new broader scope for background information/arguments that are related enough to the context of the debate, it is fine, and helps with NPOV--even though it is not directly engaging in an argument counter to the claim of State Terrorism. However, I'm open to hear others thoughts on the above, and will go with consensus on the matter. So I think we should keep it for now, unless there are good objections. I've fixed the references as discussed above, as I said I would get to it this week, i.e. linking the Erikson to Zinn for proper attribution of the one who cites him for making the argument. I should be able to get the exact Coady quote this week too. I also found this fitting for the section, which I also think is close enough to these Bombings, and a central part of the State Terrorism analysis:

"Some scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll, and in particular these atomic bombings. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. Examples of state terrorism cited are Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima. The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988."

I think it adds nicely to the section, although its more about State Terrorism per se than this particular act of it, it does cite it as an act, having ramifications for future state behavior that is described as state terrorism within foreign policy. So its quite relevant (I threw in the German Bombings for context of the idea). Thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You restored "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." Again, does not mention terrorism and no mention of opposing views regarding thi.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blind reverting everything first, before even talking about it here. Way to go on this article, Ultra. But, to respond, it does not need to mention terrorism. You need to get over that old outlook. Its relevant because its part of the argument by the proponents of the view, and is in context. My improvements should be restored.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making many changes without explanation or discussion on talk first. Regarding the Stohl material is already in the state terrorism article. "in particular these atomic bombings" is not mentioned in the original quote by Stohl. Obviously we must include the opposing views regarding justification and military necessity if starting discussing this.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You also made changes violating WP:WTA like changing "allege" to "point out".Ultramarine (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Changed "Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan as state terrorism." to "Legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan as state terrorism." Giving the impression there is a consensus.Ultramarine (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not either 1. fix that, or 2. better yet, raise it here so I could fix that after discussion? No, you just blanked reverted everything, and your using the old false argument again that it must say "state terror." I notice you did not object or removed the above added content on the basis. This appears to me to be bad faith editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you not discuss these changes first? Why make such pov changes in the first place? Please read the above for what arguments I stated.Ultramarine (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I DID. Extensively, and said I would make the changes this week.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you did the many changes before posting anything in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed that. Anything else that you would like to discuss first BEFORE blanket reverting again?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed what? I stated numerous problems above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you only stated one valid problem. The 'Some" is missing. What else? Your argument about needing the words "state terrorism" is not a valid argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your violation of WP:WTA which I stated above being one example. As well inserting an unsupported "in particular these atomic bombings" as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is saying, "an in particular" words to avoid? Those are the acts of WW2 that are cited as examples in particular, of what the authors were talking about. I was just trying to be accurate and tie it to the section topic.

I would like editors to discuss this addition of yours: "However, there are others who argue that bombings were saved many lives, were morally justified, and military necessary as discussed in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article." I feel that its off topic to the issue of state terrorism. The debate over the atomic bombings link is already given on the top. Why repeat it again? And, this is not supposed to be a fork of that article. Those counter points are not within context of this act being one of stat terrorism, nor even counter arguments used within argument by proponents, such as the above section by Ryan Paddy, which does address those arguments. For example, saying they saved lives does not touch on any of the arguments that its state terrorism. This is an old debate that we've had before with other editors explaining and showing you that an act can be considered a terrorist act and still be one that ultimately saves lives. The two have no connection with each other. So its not a relevant addition.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I stated "You also made changes violating WP:WTA like changing "allege" to "point out"."

Regarding the Stohl material is already in the state terrorism article. "in particular these atomic bombings" is not mentioned in the original quote by Stohl.

The sources cited for "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." does not claim terrorism. So if including this opposing views must be included.Ultramarine (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your still missing my point. This is not about any POV and then finding any other POV. It has to be logically tied to the arguments of the subject and within context. Your addition is not, as explained. Saving lives and being a terrorist is not mutually exclusive. So the one argument does not touch the other. Get it? Thus it is off topic here. Regarding the Stohl material, yes, I saw it there and looked it up. They are paraphrasing the scholars who make that argument. I verified it was correct. And, they do cite the Atomic bombings in particular. I don't see the problem of stating that. Lastly, why are you still using the "has to say state terrorism" argument. Thats a dead horse, so no need to open that up again.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you still do not reply regarding the WP:WTA violation and I will assume there is no opposing argument and will edit the article accordingly.

Regarding the Stohl material, please give quote and page number from the book supporting your claim of "in particular these atomic bombings" .

The sources for "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" are not any more logically tied to this article than the given counter-arguments. None of the sources mention terrorism but can possible be included as background material if all NPOV is respected. In addition "in this context" should be removed as again state terrorism is not mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are because military necessary and transgressing accepted moral barriers are both arguments used by those who classify such as under the rubric of terrorism. Completely logically tied, unlike your additions in the name of NPOV.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Last chance. Any concrete objection to correcting the WP:WTA violation? Do you have quote and page number regarding your claim of "in particular these atomic bombings"?

You ignored my point that the given sources for "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" does not make any connection to state terrorism. If including this background, then also the opposing views should be included.Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to correct if if you could explain the problem. So far you have not. What is the problem that needs correcting? Where does it say those are words to avoid? Can you quote that? If so I'll be happy to correct that so you don't have to waste a "revert." About connection to terrorism, its does not need to say terrorism. See addition of Ryan above. That is valid even though its doesn't mention terrorism. Its about a logical context to the subjects arguments pro/con. The subject is state terrorism. This also includes relevant background material discussed as relevant by those making the claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some allege that the Target Committee" changed to "They point to the fact that the Target Committee". I will add a fact tag to the article regarding your unsourced claim before removing. Regarding the military necessary and moral discussion, if sources do not have to mention state terrorism, then the same applies to the opposing views. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you: opposing views in order to be opposing views have to be about the subject or the arguments the subject rests on, in order to counter them. Saying it saved lives doesn't engage in material related to the topic of state terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. One can save lives through acts of terror. One one argues that its state terrorism on the basis of arguments of lives saved. That is a different debate. I can't say it any clearer. So there is no double standard. The standard is one of consistent logic.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Double standard. The sources claiming "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" do not mention state terrorism. So double standard if excluding sources opposing this for not mentioning state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Giovanni33 has articulated well the differences, Mr.Ultramarine. The effect of terrorism (good results, bad method has nothing to do with the fact of it being terrorism or not. Whereas, the argument that it was not done for military purposes but to terrorize the world (as the US did, using their first stike option to continue state terror) and that the method was a "transgression of acceptable moral barriers" is talking about issues of terrorism. That is why States will deny doing it. Its violates acceptable moral norms becaues it targets innocents. This is true even if the goal is to save lives or does so in fact. Like the arguments for torture, they are considered to not be moral tactics. So, you see, this has to do with the the subject of terror.

I am happy to see improvement since I last saw it, but the last few edits did not improve it. The full quote by Zinn about spirt of fascism is distracting and makes the quote too large. Its better to keep it compact as before. I set it off with quotes for formatting and easier to read.DrGabriela (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From an outsider editor POV looking in, it appears that Ultra has an agenda to push here. Gio has sourced well the additions and the only real problem is space and proper wiki'fying. Please allow him to continue as consensus is he is right when we only use Good Faith arguments. Thank you. Hooper (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still a double standard. The sources claiming "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" do not mention state terrorism. So double standard if excluding sources opposing this for not mentioning state terrorism. Also, you removed the fact tag without explanation. The Zinn quote is now misleading and strange since the question asked is not answered.Ultramarine (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Its called a rhetorical question, Ultra. Its not meant to be answered. You changing the ? to a period changes the meaning a bit and the effect of the quote. Its also a thought provoking question/point. Not everything added needs to directly mention the words "state terrrorism" for it to be a valid inclusion. The above material by Ryan for example does not but its relevant to the discuss of the topic as its logically tied to the arguments advanced by the proponents of the thesis (state terrorism). Your additions create a pov fork and bring up a separate debate not related to any of the claims advanced by them or related to this subject (state terrorism). So there is no double standard. If there was I'd be arguing to remove the Ryan material.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a rhetorical question since Zinn answers it later in the article. The article would be a POV fork if excluding the views of one side.Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you find a source that doesn't mention State Terrorism but can still be a boost to the main topic of this article, then yes you can use it, and the same vice versa. Military force, especially if unnecessary, is indeed relevant to this topic. If you have a source that you are wanting to use, let us know why, where, and how and if it is equally relevant, then it can be used. No double standard. Just do it. Hooper (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The opposing views sources are indeed a boost to the article in order to follow NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But if you don't have any opposing view sources then that doesn't make the article POV, it just means you lack sources for your opposition. Hooper (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens opposing views sources regarding military necessity and moral justification in the main article. A bunch can easily be added.Ultramarine (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I removed your dubious tag as it is incorrect. You are the only opposition and have yet to provide a valid reason for said tag. If you're trying for good faith adds to wikipedia then maybe you should not work on an article you have an obvious point of view on. Its just a good way to keep yourself from getting upset if an article doesn't read the way you want it to read. This article is currently in a decent state other than the quote being discussed below for removal. If continued editing wars go on between the main two editors it is recommended to have third party admins come in and help with the discussion or to lock the page. Hooper (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Point to" is prohibited by WP:WTA. Do you insist on violating policy?Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, spare me the ad hominem and incivility.Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just read that policy, and I'm not following where you say this article is going against it. Please provide the sentence in question so I can give you an answer. Hooper (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Point to" is listed among "Words that may advance a point of view". Should be avoided.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read that, let me be more clear: what is the sentence in this article that you feel is going against that policy. That is what I'm not seeing. Hooper (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what the tag you deleted marked. "They point to the fact that the Target Committee,"Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I can actually see the sentence. Yes it is a word to avoid but it is not Dubious by any means. Instead of placing a tag, we should discuss a better phrasing. Perhaps: ..achieve a political goal, highlighted by the fact that the Target Committee.... or something like this. What type of phrase are you interested in seeing, or does the above work? Hooper (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That the target committee did is dubious so "allege" is an approprate word as per WP:WTA.Ultramarine (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree to that. It is a known fact that the target committee did choose to not hit a military target and went civilian. This is a fact. So "allege" is a very misleading and improper word. Point to is to be avoided, so we should find a way to state the fact without using it. Hooper (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the source says. Hiroshima is mentioned as being a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What the source and the statement say is that they chose a target not exclusively military when they could have and had a choice. That is all. So it is not alleging anything since they did do it, it is just mentioning that it did happen. Hooper (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)" From the target committee document listed as a source.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "they chose a target not exclusively military when they could have and had a choice." is not supported by the document.Ultramarine (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we're in agreement. You aren't keeping me. Let's try to clarify, here is the section in question: Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. They point to the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.

So, our source are the minutes and what we know from that is that they could have hit a exclusively military site but chose Hiroshima. However, what we do not know is that they did this to hit civilians. As your last post shows, it could very well have just been good planning. So, where our sentence says ...atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents..., that is exactly where we should use Alleged. Because that is an Allegation, and not necessarilly fact. I think we can agree on this.

So moving on to the next sentence: They point to the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective.... We want to change "point to" per policy, however alleged is not correct nor proper as it is not true. They did indeed chose a non-strictly military objective target. The exact wording can be debated but alleged is improper. However, to side with you some, the following tidbit: ...instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. should once again say alleged as it is not necessarilly the reason. So here is what I would say the new section should look like to be NPOV:

Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification highlight the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, alleging that they chose a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.

How do you feel about the above? Hooper (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote please from the target committee document supporting "they could have hit a exclusively military site but chose Hiroshima" and "they did this to hit civilians".Ultramarine (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Civilians" are not mentioned at all in the document.Ultramarine (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will quote where they chose Hiroshima and not sites that were exclusively military. I will not and can not quote that they did this to hit civilians, which is why alleged belongs where it is. You are misrepresenting that. But, as far as their possible targets: (4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target). Kokura was a military target, whereas the other targets risked harming civilians. So yes, we know they did choose the targets they did over other possible targets, but we do NOT know that they did this to kill civilians. That is why Alleged belongs where i put it but not where you want it. Hooper (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kokura is also a city with civilians. Considering that many bombers managed to miss hitting entire cities at the time, only a target covering a very large area could be chosen.Ultramarine (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another quote, since it can even be argued that even hitting the arsenal risked civilian life: 8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb. Hooper (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That means that a valley or similar area should be chosen. Does not mention civilians.Ultramarine (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so lets try to see what can be agreed from the source:

• A) They chose not to attack a strictly military objective
• B) That saying they made that decision for a political agenda or to kill civilians is an Allegation and should be called such, so it is
• C) That saying they chose not to attack a strictly military objective is true and should not be called an allegation.

Which is exactly what I did with my above suggestion for how to re-word the paragraph. Hooper (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A and C of this are not mentioned. See my comments above.Ultramarine (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which means that, once again, we are in AGREEMENT. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. You're begining to not make sense to me. I am stating that people who claim they did this for a reason to kill civilians or for political agendas are ALLEGING that they are doing this, not that it is fact. That is why we use the word alleged twice in this paragraph. I'm not saying at all that it is fact. I'm just stating that the one place you want to add allege is a fact, and should not be worded as such. So we seem to be in agreement on that, but not in agreement on how to reword it. I have provided an example, if you would care to provide an example as well. Hooper (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

However, you are wrong: A and C are TRUE. They mention it in the above quote that they are not choosing a strictly military site, and they say why not. They go on to say that if they did, what it would need. So A and C are CORRECT and SOURCED. Hooper (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They are false. Again see my replies above and reply if you have more arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can no longer try to come to an agreement with you because you are no longer making sense to me. Not trying to be mean, I'm just stating I can no longer follow your logic. I have followed your statements above and at this point they are either A) WRONG or B) Agreed and in line with the suggested content change. So me re-reading your above does nothing but re-affirm me to make the change as it is correct with what you have asked for. I have no more arguments. And to say that they are false is to blatantly ignore half of the source. Unless you provide an example paragraph for the content change, I will make the change, as we can both agree it needs to be changed. Lets just be done with it and move on. Hooper (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"highlight the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective" is still false. See my arguments above. All the listed possible targets where cities with civilians. No mention of a "strictly military target" which could be chosen. Only a very large target located in an valley or similar area could be chosen which very much limited available options.Ultramarine (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you are blatantly ignoring the subsection of the source labeled apprpriately "Military Objectives" that I quoted earlier where they specifically say that. They say in another point that if they were to choose a strictly military objective, all the qualifications it would need to be made. This is why it is true to say they chose not to do that, but what is not true and an allegation is to try to hypothesise why. Which is how the new paragraph reflects it. Hooper (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Military Objectives" section only points out that a valley or similar area concentrating the blast should be chosen. "They say in another point that if they were to choose a strictly military objective, all the qualifications it would need to be made." Huh? Quote please? Ultramarine (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not get into an edit war with you. I came into this page because of the edit war between you and Gio. I am going to get outside assistance from the proper wiki channels and we should allow them to debate on it and decide what the new sentence should say since we can obviously not agree. Though I do not believe your "failed verificication/not in source" tag is correct. We should cease from furthur edits until others have a chance to look into it. Hooper (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Unbalanced tag from the section when there is an ongoing dispute? Why did you not mention this in the edit summary?Ultramarine (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding, as I stated earlier, that we were actually in agreement and if you had no other example, it would be changed. That has obviously been wrong, so yes the tag should be replaced. A third opinion should be incoming and we can see what they think.Hooper (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to that. Now please put the tag back while there is an ongoing dispute.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Ferguson quote again

I strongly oppose that addition of that rediculous Ferguson quote back, which was previously removed per consensus. But maybe consensus has changed. I did not revert it, when I could have, because I prefer to have discussion and respect Merzbow as a serious editor. Lets hear what others think about it.

My problem with it is not because of where it was published, an op-ed piece in the telegraph popular press, but because of the context of it being cherry picked out of context into this article, and it being a logical fallacy--a straw man, since no one makes the claim Ferguson says is not true. To cite a refuting claim against a claim that does not exist makes no sense to place in an article. The fact is that the context that its an op-ed piece in the popular press specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter is also relevant. In other words, it is NOT an historical study of Guatemala, which is the kind of academic quality this article should be citing as a counter point--not a fallacious polemic against a rival Pinter that is not specific to the Guatemalan Civil War. In short it was a sloppy sweeping attack on Pinter. Therefore it should not go into articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us note that all the Chomsky material are op-eds or interviews. So they should be removed if excluding op-eds. The article stats "the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." Professor Ferguson's is replying to such claims.Ultramarine (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, it does state the US initiated the cycle of terror. But, who in the world (just name one) makes that claim that the US is to blame for all deaths? Now, if we have anyone anywhere making the claim that all deaths are to be blamed on the US, then this would have a place. Otherwise, its pure rubbish, an insult to the very notion of an "opposing view." If we want a good opposing view, lets fine one from a historian who knows what they are talking about in this case of Guatemala, who is making a careful historical analysis, say from someone who specializes in Guatemalan History? Polemical attacks in the popular press made against others with sweeping brushes that use straw man fallacies are utterly useless except to degrade the scholarly content of the article.

So, yes, the US is responsible for initiating. That is a common view. Dispute that? Fine, then quote a good source that disputes it, or engages with that argument. The straw man cherry picked quote does not do this. Straw man fallacies have no place in WP as substitutes for real opposing views on a subject matter. We do have some standards here, I hope!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"who in the world (just name one) makes that claim that the US is to blame for all deaths?" The quote does. If you initiate something which has consequences you are seen as partly or wholly responsible. Again, Ferguson is replying to this argument.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Initiating does not equal complete blame for all deaths. No one makes that argument. The quote doesn't. So the counter is knocking over a straw man. It doesn't dispute the claim. It disputes a claim that no one makes.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. No qualifier giving. The US alleged to have initiated something which led to 200,000 deaths. Implied that all these deaths are US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe this same debate is happening here too! How many places is this same debate going on? Its crazy! Why not find a better source that makes a more intelligent counter point? A source that is less controversial? We should not be wasting our time with this.DrGabriela (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The source should be removed and find a better one. Lets stop arguing over political agendas and just be a wiki here. Hooper (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Concrete factual arguments please. If the US is not responsible for all these deaths, then there should be no problem with removing "that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans".Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY time that 200,000 is given as a number is in the ferguson quote that should be removed, so it seems that we are actually in agreement. Hooper (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was not correct earlier but is now.Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Get your fingers out of your asses...

And clean up this article. Now. If NPOV is an editorial problem and not a valid reason for deletion, get rid of the NPOV violations that have plagued this article for three years. Even if you have to stub it. Sceptre 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference realityofaid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "US, Philippines weigh new military marriage". Asia Times. 2006-08-23.
3. US National Security Adviser lauds RP's anti-terror efforts
4. US Military: 3 Terrorists Killed in Operations in Taji and Samara
5. INQUIRER.net
6. http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-31/6-31-trail.htm
7. When guns speak - 5/13/07
8. "What Drives Macapagal-Arroyo's "Silent War"?". Bulatlat.
9. PRWC - Statement by
10. "Deadly dirty work in the Philippines (page 2)". Asia Times. 2007-02-13.
11. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/07/iraq-040719-21f0f024.htm
12. All-Women HR Team to Philippines
13. Let the Stones Cry Out HR Report National Council of Churches in the Philippines March 2007
14. Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary | Terror and Torture in the Philippines
15. "Hiroshima; Breaking the Silence". Retrieved 2008-01-30. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
16. Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)
17. Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles