Ultramarine (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
:Ok, section finally added using the sources above. I look forward to improvements of the section. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
:Ok, section finally added using the sources above. I look forward to improvements of the section. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I have a question for others. Is using an original source OR? I see that two sections was taken out for this reason by another editor. I looked and everything was sourced, tho. ??! I d0 not see the problem. I don't see anywhere on this discussion site where any editor talks about this problem either? Lastly my other question is why are two sections being removed if the problem is one source in one? I would like someone to explain all this. Thank you all.[[User:Olawe|Olawe]] ([[User talk:Olawe|talk]]) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:50, 21 May 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The Philippines
The Philippines section[1] currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States. I am proposing that the section be deleted if such a source cannot be provided. Please discuss. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- All the resources seem to be in context and proper, so I'll have to disagree with your recommendation. Hooper (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about allegations of state terrorism. Those sources contain no such allegations. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going with Ice Cold Beer on this one. Jtrainor (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with HoopperBandP, where. This has been discussed before and the references support the claims. All the claims are in context too. I suggest going back in the archives to review this discussion before rehashing it again.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the archives. The sources do not indicate any allegations of state terrorism against the United States. If I'm wrong, please show me where any of the sources makes such an allegation. Otherwise, such a source needs to be provided or the section needs to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The entire section is built around the accusations of a single individual, E. San Juan Jr, with a bunch of articles in fringe websites. And we also have the accusation of a Catholic friar also publishing in a fringe website; he certainly doesn't count. San Juan is a marginally notable former professor, but these are just webzines he's published these articles in. Unless other reliable sources can be found, I see no foundation to keep this section. - Merzbow (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've read the archives. The sources do not indicate any allegations of state terrorism against the United States. If I'm wrong, please show me where any of the sources makes such an allegation. Otherwise, such a source needs to be provided or the section needs to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW, the Catholic priest about whose merits you are so certain are negligible has been nominated 3 times for the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized as an authority on human rights in the Philippines. I do however, recommend expanding the scope of the section to include material discussing the U.S. role in state terrorism by the Marcos and Aquino regimes.BernardL (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- And he can't find anyone else willing to publish his views than a website nobody's heard of? Being nominated for the Peace Prize is no standard of notability: "In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received." - Nobel peace prize. He has no Wikipedia article about him (Shay Cullen), and the web article in question [2] helpfully informs us to "For more informaetion (sic) see: http://www.preda.org." Is this the standard for high-quality sourcing we want to proud of? - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- E. San Juan, Jr. is of course notable (has a google hit of over 3 millilon[3], and so s Fr. Shay Cullen who was also awarded the prestigious Human Rights Award from the City of Weimar, in Germany. A Wikipedia article about him could certainly exist and pass notability standards.[4],[5]Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A more correct Google search gives 25,000 hits for "E. San Juan, Jr.".[6] Unknown how many of these are about the same person. A prize by a small city in Germany is not notableUltramarine (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- E. San Juan, Jr. is of course notable (has a google hit of over 3 millilon[3], and so s Fr. Shay Cullen who was also awarded the prestigious Human Rights Award from the City of Weimar, in Germany. A Wikipedia article about him could certainly exist and pass notability standards.[4],[5]Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Being nominated does not make someone noteworthy - not to say that there are no other reasons why he may be notable. On another note:
President Arroyo invited thousands of U.S. Special Forces to engage in police actions together with the AFP, thus violating an explicit Constitutional provision against the intervention of foreign troops in local affairs. She followed Fidel Ramos in implementing the Visiting Forces Agreement, together with other onerous treaties, thus maintaining U.S. control of the Philippine military via training of officers, logistics, and dictation of punitive measures against the Moro insurgents as well as the New People's Army guerrillas. The Philippines became the "second front in the war on terror," with Bush visiting the Philippines in October 2004 and citing the neocolony as a model for the rebuilding of devastated Iraq.
That isn't necessarily state terrorism, so should be removed. The second one isn't much better. Even if that is "state terrorism", it's the Philippine government. The article is about the US committing state terrorism, not supporting regimes that amongst other things are alleged to commit it. John Smith's (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not questionable at all, besides the fact that we should not be questioning what reliable sources say anyway. State Terrorism is almost always a part of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency efforts by states. In fact, Chomsky even says that counter insurgency is just a technical term used by the powerful for state terrorism. Now, I'm not saying that we can then subsitute any claim of counter insurgency/political violence as state terrorism. No, we still need sources that make the explicit claims of state terrorism. However, its completely false--and OR--to say its "highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism." That is not what a reading of the literature says. Rather they go hand in hand.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. So a government attempting to suppress an illegal armed group in it's own territory is terrorism? Perhaps you should take up that view over at the Iraq war article to describe the current Iraqi government's activities to suppress the various folks causing trouble over there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not questionable at all, besides the fact that we should not be questioning what reliable sources say anyway. State Terrorism is almost always a part of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency efforts by states. In fact, Chomsky even says that counter insurgency is just a technical term used by the powerful for state terrorism. Now, I'm not saying that we can then subsitute any claim of counter insurgency/political violence as state terrorism. No, we still need sources that make the explicit claims of state terrorism. However, its completely false--and OR--to say its "highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism." That is not what a reading of the literature says. Rather they go hand in hand.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Legality has nothing to do with it. It can be trying to suppress the pacifist vegetarian society, or the Shining Path: the issue is not who or why a conflict exists, but rather the tactics used by the state when it engages in conflict. When those tactics comprise a certain character and nature that scholars deems as terrorism, then we report on it. It so happens that much of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency operations by State have entailed terrorism by the state, according to the literature. Nothing interesting there to me, and again its not up to use to argue the point: we only report on it. If there are reliable and notable sources making allegations of state terrorism by the US in Iraq, then it belongs in this article, with perhaps a small mention in the main article (we must remember undue weight).
- Speaking of illegal, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Those who resist an illegal occupation have the law on their side. But this is not an issue of legality. True state terrorism is illegal as it violates other laws regarding the use of force by states, but its not relevant to considerations of state terrorism per se.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the main point to decide should be if there is a source that states the U.S. government's participation in the Philippines is state terrorism. If this exists, I do not see the problem, however it should be removed if such a source does not exist. I do remember adding one, so unless someone decided to remove it, which case I can readd it, the content should stay. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- lol Jtrainor (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Going back to where this started... the assertion that he section "currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States". No-one in the discussion above has provided any source which does, only vague assertions of references to previous discussions. Unless someone provides such a source, the section is coming out William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- You would like the section to come out you mean. I will look back at the older version to see if one exists. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Connolley's hearkening back to the original objection about there being 5 references without accusations of state terrorism by the U.S., I would contend that although the objection has been raised there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors. I would suggest actually reading the references, then picking out the best arguments supporting the notion the accusation in the source that the U.S. is complicit in state terrorism and then subsequently providing argumentation that the source in fact does not make the claim. It should perhaps be kept in mind that most of these have not been included for the purpose of expounding an analysis so much as providing a corroboration that there are in fact folks making the claim. Setting aside for the moment, the question of notability of the source (because it was not brought up in the original objection) we can look at reference #1 [[7]] as follows ... The two most pertinent questions seem to be a) is it being described as state terrorism? From the text we can read: "Meanwhile, the Philippine criminal justice system (described by the Asian Human Rights Commission as “rotten”) will begin to apply this July the heinous provisions of the anti-terrorism bill to criminalize all radical, anticapitalist organizations and all public rallies critical of the neocolonial system, U.S. imperialist aggression, IMF-World Bank, and predatory transnational corporations. UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin has warned that the “Human Security Act” passed by Congress contradicts international principles of legality and is bound to trigger more political killings and other State terrorist abuses. Arroyo’s “lawful” terrorism is bound not only to worsen the misery of 87 million Filipinos over half of whom are direly impoverished (one million leave every year, joining 10 million overseas Filipino workers spread around the planet). State terrorism will surely feed and stoke the fires of revolutionary resistance—both peaceful and armed—against oligarchic barbarism and corporate savagery." Clearly state terrorism is being used as a description. The second pertinent question is whether significant responsibility is being attributed to the U.S. role? In the article being referred to it says: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses. Through various unequal treaties and diplomatic skullduggery, the US government has underwritten the ongoing counter-insurgency operations as part of its “global war on terrorism,” thus justifying the political murders and the unconscionable impunity of both Philippine and U.S. governments." Is that an attribution of significant responsibility or not? We should be able to go through each of the references systematically like this, actually reading them for a change, and presenting their strongest arguments, then assessing them. It seems to me that all of the objections above show no sign evidence of such close scrutiny. I don't have any particular attachment to this section as I had no hand in writing it and do not particularly approve of the methods of the person who was primarily responsible for it. I would only add that there have been other accusations made regarding the U.S. role in the Philippines as an instance of state terrorism for other time periods. Here are links to the other references in the first sentence: [[8]] , [[9]], [[10]] BernardL (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I must have been unclear when I started this section. I did read all of the sources, and not once is the United States accused of state terrorism. I'll take a look at the other ones that you have just provided and give my thoughts on those. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of the three sources you have just provided, the first one does not accuse the United States of state terrorism. The second and third sources are already in the article and, like I've already said, also do not accuse the U.S. of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I must have been unclear when I started this section. I did read all of the sources, and not once is the United States accused of state terrorism. I'll take a look at the other ones that you have just provided and give my thoughts on those. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did not make yourself clear because you provided objection without any substantiation. Now regarding reference #1 above I provided some evidence that state terrorism by Arroyo is being described, and that the author believes that the U.S. has significant responsibility for the state terrorism. If you disagree use the textual evidence to deny that the claim is in fact being made. Alternatively you could state a more fundamental disagreement that only the most literal self-contained accusations are admissible for this article. In which case I would disagree.BernardL (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- In sum, these sources state that the United States has provided aid for the Philippines, which has engaged in state terrorism. The conclusion that this is state terrorism has been made by the authors of this article, and not by the authors of the sources. If you don't believe that the source actually has to accuse the U.S. of state terrorism, then you are challenging our policy on original research. This talk page is not the place to challenge our policies; you are looking for WT:OR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- As has been explained on the WT:OR discussion board in the past, asserting that a source must use the same words as the title to qualify is in fact an unduly extreme interpretation of the policy. The same concepts and accusations can be made in different ways, with different words, and material that is directly related to the topic that does not necessarily use the exact terminology is also admissible. The policy states that a source cannot be used in such a way as to distort the original intention of its author. In the case of E. San Juan Jr. I do not think it distorts his intentions or his analysis at all to suggest that his work maintains that the U.S. is significantly responsible for state terrorism in the Philippines. He describes Arroyo state terror, while the U.S. relation to that terror is a central element in the analysis. In this link here [[11]] he clearly implicates the U.S. immediately by the hyphenization in the title : "BUSH-ARROYO FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY." From the same article I have already given references to his descriptions of the state terror and his explanation of the Bush linkages. In a similar manner, here,...[[12]], San Juan demarcates the U.S. role as a central element in his analysis, both in the title, which joins U.S. hegemony to Arroyo state terrorism, and in the section entitled U.S. patronage. A clincher I think is the following San Juan article: "Imperial Terror, Neo-Colonialism and the Filipino Diaspora"[[13]]. After reading it is there any doubt which state San Juan thinks is the agent of "Imperial Terror"? And taking all into account can there be any doubt that San Juan's analysis belongs in a page whose topic is discussion of significant responsibility of the U.S. in state terrorism? BernardL (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another issue, as mentioned above, is that the sources here are manifestly unreliable. It's already been discussed why the Friar is non-notable. E. San Juan Jr. maybe, but it's only two minor webzines that his words are referenced in here. We need higher-quality sources to justify a section. - - Merzbow (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but this was not actually "discussed" since no credible "exploration" was conducted. It was pretty much peremptorily dismissed. Your comments regarding the friar suggested US-centrism. First, you argued that he can't be notable because he did not have his own wikipedia article, as if that was some sort of authoritative criteria especially for someone whose main domain is in the third world and for a situation that receives relatively little media coverage. There is in fact a page on Preda that includes pertinent biographical material about Cullen, for what it matters. The point was raised that he has received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. This in of itself does not establish notability, although it may be considered a point contributing to notability. You tried to minimize this by pointing to the large number of nominees in some years. Taken in stride with such considerations surely must be the consideration that the Nobel Committee requires that its nominations are made by individuals who meet their qualifying criteria. [[14]] The fact that Cullen's nominations were made by elected politicians in Germany and Canada attests to a certain international notability. Subsequently it was pointed out that he received a human rights award from the city of Weimar. This was reflexively and summarily dismissed- by what criteria and by what authority? - Well, according to Ultramarine's expert opinion it is because the city of Weimar is small, therefore the award can have no importance. If we actually cared to explore rather than reflexively dismiss we might learn that ..."Every year since 1995 local people in Weimar have nominated an individual, group or organisation to receive a human rights prize in "remembrance of the historical responsibility of Weimar and as a symbol of the nameless victims of dictatorships and despotic rulers around the world." After the nomination process the presentation committee made up of representatives of Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes, UNHCR, and the Society for Endangered Peoples makes the final decision on who should receive the award for "commitment to human rights in spite of state or state-sanctioned violence or persecution." [[15]]. Perhaps, it is worth recalling that all this fuss is being made about a source who seems to be used among a group of sources providing corroboration for a general claim, not any specific analysis. Maybe after all is said and done, such considerations should be dismissed, I'm all ears to reasonable and substantiated arguments. I just do not share the callous attitude that summarily dismisses moral figures ostensibly doing important internationally recognized work to help suffering people. Incidentally Cullen has also received prizes for human rights from cities in Italy and Switzerland. He has also been featured on CNN [[16]] and Amnesty International [[17]] has no problem with extensively referencing PREDA. (The organization that a priori cannot be notable because you've never heard of it.}BernardL (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- He may be the bestest, most lovable friar in the world, but he has no scholarly credentials on the subject, nor has he published these accusations in any reliable source. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - WP:RS. A webzine called "Independent Catholic News" with a big fat spelling error at the bottom does not qualify. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors - this is the wrong way round. You have to show that the sources contain what they are claimed to. I agree that [18] shows such evidence, but am dubious that its RS. It appears to be a copy of [19]. Its RS-status is at best unclear. Do you have anything better, or is that it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, could you specify what it is that you find "dubious" and I will see what I can do to address your concerns. I hope that you are aware that San Juan has a phd from Harvard and just last month received a prestigious fellowship to teach at Harvard, effective in the spring of 2009.[[20]] His writings have extensively studied U.S.- Filipino relations, as evidenced by "U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines," by "After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines-United States Confrontations", and by "In the Wake of Terror: Class, Race, Nation and Ethnicity in the Postmodern World" all by notable academic publishers (Palgrave Macmillan, Rowman & Liitlefield, and Lexington Press, respectively).BernardL (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. SJ's credentials are not the issue (at the moment). What is in doubt is whether the source is RS. It doesn't seem to be, and you haven't found anything better (if SJ is as notable as you suggest, it seems odd that no mainstream media every publish his stuff). Your source appears to be [21] (the fact that you used a copy of this, apparently without realising it, makes it a bit more dubious). Is bay area indymedia a WP:RS? Clearly a debatable point, but not obviously answerable with Yes. It says its "a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area independent media makers and media outlets" which doesn't help. Can you find evidence of it being used as a RS elsewhere on wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was simply asking for clarification. Another source for San Juan’s views was offered- this link to the St. John's University Humanities Review [[22]]. Does this meet the approval of editors here or not, and why?BernardL (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see no further objections. Source is reliable.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Philippines version added 23:49, 10 May 2008
Per WP:BRD
- Bold [23]
- Revert (x2) [24]
- Awaiting discussion: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's true that there was no discussion, thus WMC's edit summary saying otherwise was an untruth. Also noteworthy is that after it was originally inserted it was there for about 8 hours without objections, even though Merzbow had been by this page to make a comment [[25]] and Ultramarine was editing on wikipedia. [[26]] If folks want to discuss issues rationally they I'm all fir it. It is to be expected. BernardL (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not removing it. The sourcing is certainly an improvement over the old section, but it's too wordy; two-thirds of it alone are based just on McClintock. It could probably be compressed by half and would be more effective. - Merzbow (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just quickly going over the Philippines section and am noticing that apparently Prof. Falk doesnt know what he is talking about. The US was not confronted by a nationalistic government movement in the Spanish American War. The US gave weapons to those against the Spanish. It may be that Prof. Falk is talking about the Philippine-American war but how credible can the guy be if he can't even get the name of the war right? LZ (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The section regarding Lansdale seems to be quite a bit in contrast with this version "Trusting the Filipinos, allowing them to form their own solutions to their problems with a minimum of interference, and always treating them as equals were Lansdale's keys to success. He advised them on counter-guerrilla tactics and helped them lessen their reliance on conventional operations, but he always made sure they were responsible for the decisions. He maintained a low-profile and allowed Filipinos to take credit for successful operations, concurrently building pride and confidence in the AFP and their fellow countrymen. As retired Maj. Gen. Lansdale so aptly put it, the Filipinos best knew the problems, best knew how to solve them, and did it -- with U.S. aid and advice, but without U.S. domination of their effort."[1] Lansdale and Ramon Magsaysay are almost unanimously credited for defeating the insurgency by gaining public support. This is the exact opposite of the claims made here that they terrorized the locals.LZ (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like you've found an alternative view of the events from another reliable source. When the article is unlocked, it should be added to maintain NPOV. - Merzbow (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Japan
The consensus on talk is to keep the Japan section. Currently there are some modifications taking place on a sand box, I understand. Someone just removed the entire section again based on an invalid premise: their OR belief that its not state terrorism because it occurred in the context of a war. This has been extensively discussed and consensus is that the section is completely appropriate to the topic of State terrorism given the many high quality references making the allegation. I've restored it.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Giovanni's restoration and rationale. The deletion was done by an editor that has never before edited the article or talk page. There should have been discussion here before a change of that magnitude was made in a controversial article, per the notice at the top of this page. — Becksguy (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is my opinion we need a section covering Japan. It may be wider in scope (war terrorism?); it probably ought to be shorter; but it should definitely be there. Endorse restoration. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus on talk is meaningless, since the POV-pushers have driven everyone else away. The Japan section remains, as it always was, revisionist. It's amusing that Giovanni accuses them of OR, since no reliable source calls it an act of state terrorism by the USA, the reliable sources use "war terrorism" and the combination of war terrosiam, the United States and excluding other involved states, gives the novel synthesis that this was state terrorism by the United States. Was Dresden an act of state terrorism by the UK? Was Coventry an act of state terrorism by Germany? It's just revisionist nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "The consensus on talk is meaningless" thank you Lord God Almighty for your proclamation from on high that your personal evaluation of the situation overrides policy. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have even read the section and looked at the sources? If you did you would see that we have lot of notable people cited who have described the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism. These are not nobodies, either, but Princeton Professor Richard Falk, and University of Chicago Bruce Cumings, Mark Seldon, et al. If you feel this needs to be beefed up some more, I can add more reliable sources. Back when it was proposed and agreed on, consensus was to keep it relatively concise, so we left out many additional sources. We can expand this section by adding more sources, if that is the issue.
- Your objection to this section seems largely centered on your own argument that the bombings are not state terrorism since there was a war going on. Also that its represents a scholarly revision to the traditional view. But both of these points are not relevant rebuttal to the fact that there are notable and scholarly "allegations of state terrorism by the US" when it comes to this issue. As such this Japan section meets the standards of the article, and is one of the more well-sourced sections that make this explicit claim. If you read it its hard to miss.
- A couple words about historical revisionism is in order here. You seem to think its something that is not allowed. That is false. The word has two meanings. The correct meaning that is applicable here is that of the legitimate area of scholarship that revises previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. This has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the word. The variety of historical revisionism that is included here is of the legitimate type: a "critical reexamination of historical facts... updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate." The Japan section certainly represents a subsection of that larger revisionist POV (against the traditional historical verdict at the time)--and in fact says so within the text within the article. So what is the problem? WP is not censored to only traditional views. These are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field, so its correct we do give them a full voice in this article as they are discussing this very subject: state terrorism. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- G33 will chatter endlessly. There is no consensus to keep. I've removed it again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You would do well to learn from me a bit. Not that should should chatter endlessly, but a little more use of the talk page of actually engaging with the substance of the arguments would be good.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- G33 will chatter endlessly. There is no consensus to keep. I've removed it again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- A couple words about historical revisionism is in order here. You seem to think its something that is not allowed. That is false. The word has two meanings. The correct meaning that is applicable here is that of the legitimate area of scholarship that revises previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. This has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the word. The variety of historical revisionism that is included here is of the legitimate type: a "critical reexamination of historical facts... updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate." The Japan section certainly represents a subsection of that larger revisionist POV (against the traditional historical verdict at the time)--and in fact says so within the text within the article. So what is the problem? WP is not censored to only traditional views. These are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field, so its correct we do give them a full voice in this article as they are discussing this very subject: state terrorism. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The endless chatter has worked quite well as a strategy to paralyse change, but its become too obvious. You need to find a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You should assume good faith. There is no strategy to prevent change. Change and progress has occurred though the collaborative discussion cycle. Sorry that you can't simply impose change by force, against consensus. WP doesn't work that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- The endless chatter has worked quite well as a strategy to paralyse change, but its become too obvious. You need to find a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Per talk", eh? You are not making this any easier, WMC, by dismissing talk as "chatter".
- '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.'
- I've reinserted it. Consider actually using the talk page, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not much point talking if people don't bother read what you write. I said G33 will chatter endlessly. Not you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? I said you dismissed talk as "chatter", not that you dismissed my talk (as "chatter" or otherwise). (In fact, you seemed to ignore my talk completely, focussing on G33's alone, but that's another story.) And your continued dismissals ("not much point talking") is still not helpful, nor is your revert warring. Are you even willing to collaborate on this article, or will you insist on having it your way, without discussion? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to talk to you. Talking to G33 or his socks is a waste of time, but as far as I can tell that isn't true about you. So what do you have to say? You've just said that you want the section in. I've said I want it out. These were acts of war, and wiki already has a good article elsewhere about them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Connolley, you are absolutely right. Anything the US does is by definition not state terrorism. These allegations are simply ludicrous. --Paul Pot (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. The US does indulge in state terrorism (I accept Chomskys analysis). But this article is very poor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Connolley, you are absolutely right. Anything the US does is by definition not state terrorism. These allegations are simply ludicrous. --Paul Pot (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to talk to you. Talking to G33 or his socks is a waste of time, but as far as I can tell that isn't true about you. So what do you have to say? You've just said that you want the section in. I've said I want it out. These were acts of war, and wiki already has a good article elsewhere about them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read what I wrote? I said you dismissed talk as "chatter", not that you dismissed my talk (as "chatter" or otherwise). (In fact, you seemed to ignore my talk completely, focussing on G33's alone, but that's another story.) And your continued dismissals ("not much point talking") is still not helpful, nor is your revert warring. Are you even willing to collaborate on this article, or will you insist on having it your way, without discussion? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec, of course) I've said more before, as this subject has come up often in recent times. And I have refrained from saying even more, as others already have said it, and I rarely see a good reason to repeat what others have said. For starters though ...
- In favour of including a section on these act: We have good sources describing them as terrorism, it is a very notable event, and the uniqueness (in many respects) of this case gives this article more depth.
- Against what you provide: That they were also acts of war, no one denies; it is just irrelevant. One does not preclude the other. And the usual response to a good article elsewhere would be to summarize, not to excise. As of now, there is not in this article even a link to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or perhaps better, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#State terrorism). If anything, I should think the existence of a good article elsewhere would be good reason to include mention of it here: Build the web, right?
- But above all, rather than starting over and over again, see the talk that has already taken place. I recommend Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 22#Japan (1945). — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I look in on this issue, I never see any real consensus for it's inclusion. The rational seems a little disingenuous, but in any case Sidhekin has made his POV on the matter clear enough. I don't think he should be the one reverting as he's been doing. I don't think the case has been made quite yet for the section's inclusion. RxS (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Why not I? And if not I, who? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whenever I look in on this issue, I never see any real consensus for it's inclusion. The rational seems a little disingenuous, but in any case Sidhekin has made his POV on the matter clear enough. I don't think he should be the one reverting as he's been doing. I don't think the case has been made quite yet for the section's inclusion. RxS (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read the archives? This is a long-term, long-standing section that was included after consensus was reached among editors of various pov's. The sources are impeccable and those who wish to blank it have offered no valid arguments, and clearly lack consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You chatter endlessly and repeat the same untruths shamelessly. There is no consensus to keep or include; valid arguments against its inclusion have been given above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want me to point you to the archive's to show you clear consensus for this section? Lets talk about content, and not editors, shall we?Giovanni33 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's only consensus for it's inclusion if you ignore all dissenters and take the opinions of various sockpuppets into account. It goes. Spare me the 500 word replies, your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant as no reliable source supports your assertions on this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since you falsely claim that there are not reliable sources that support this, then I will take it you just really are asking for more sources? So I will expand this section by adding more sources from more scholars that support the claims. Any objections? Also, if you keep making personal attacks, I will report you. See WP:CIVIL too. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide valid reason why notable material from reliable sources| presented in a neutral point of view should be removed. Whatever the number of editors saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's only consensus for it's inclusion if you ignore all dissenters and take the opinions of various sockpuppets into account. It goes. Spare me the 500 word replies, your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant as no reliable source supports your assertions on this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want me to point you to the archive's to show you clear consensus for this section? Lets talk about content, and not editors, shall we?Giovanni33 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- You chatter endlessly and repeat the same untruths shamelessly. There is no consensus to keep or include; valid arguments against its inclusion have been given above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you read the archives? This is a long-term, long-standing section that was included after consensus was reached among editors of various pov's. The sources are impeccable and those who wish to blank it have offered no valid arguments, and clearly lack consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The subsection on Japan absolutely should stay. I don't see any valid arguments for it's removal, and there was consensus to keep it. State terrorism can and has been committed during war, as these acts by definition are outside the international laws and agreements on the conduct of war, just as crimes against humanity are. Trials such as International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Rape of Nanking, Nuremberg Defense, and Nuremberg Trials support that concept as committed by other nation states. Claiming revisionism won't work either. These are critical reexaminations of historical facts, something done all the time in such areas as history, anthropology, and archeology, for example. There are even reexaminations of Biblical studies in the last century or so, two millennia after the events. The only way this is going to be resolved is to work on the article in a sandbox until there is consensus as to it's content. Because if edit wars flare up again, the article will be locked. Again. — Becksguy (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I find the question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "state terrorism" utterly uninteresting and boring. Call it that or don't, I really don't care. There are far more interesting historical questions when it comes to those events.
- Reading the above though, so far none of the arguments from those who want this section out of the article are remotely convincing. Our own personal analysis or beliefs (which are mainly what are being put forward by those opposed to this section) are, of course, irrelevant unless anyone here has published on these issues. Guy brings up Dresden and offers his own argument about what why he thinks this is not state terrorism. Similarly William M. Connolley says "these were acts of war." Neither are dealing with the fact that this article is about allegations that the US has committed state terrorism and that we have multiple reliable sources that allege that dropping the a-bombs in Japan was an act of terrorism on the part of the U.S. It does not matter what we as individuals think about these issues, and it does not matter if these claims are "revisionist" (which, incidentally, is a complicated word in historiography since it means different things depending on the subject in question). Bringing up the Coventry Blitz or the Bombing of Dresden in World War II is a distraction from the issue at hand. If the latter is described by reliable sources as state terrorism by the US then we could put it in this article (yes, I know the UK was there too). If the former is described somewhere as state terrorism by Germany, and if we had an article on that topic then we could include that.
- What matters here is that Howard Zinn, Richard Falk, and, yes, even Hugo Chavez are reliable and relevant sources for an issue like this. We should report their views and the views of those opposed to them as we would for any other article. To be frank, several of those arguing to remove this are those who believe the entire article should be deleted, and as such I think their objection is partially rooted in their idea that having an "allegations of state terrorism" article is a bad idea because it lets in ridiculous accusations such as these (from their point of view). It's obviously fine to think that, but the article exists right now, and we aren't here to re-run the past 37 AfD's section by section. Allegations by notable people regarding a notable incident are exactly the kind of content that is supposed to be here.
- It is a fact that this section has been in the article for a long time, and that it was the product of a discussion among a number of editors, some of whom don't even edit here anymore. If folks want to remove it, they need to advance an argument other than "I don't think this should be here and there was no consensus for it and the people who put it here are POV pushers." That isn't going to fly. I see no argument rooted in actual Wikipedia policies for removing this section and until one is articulated there is no reason for removal. And just to add to that, simply showing up on a talk page and saying "no consensus for this!" to a section that has existed for close to a year (I think) without providing a policy based rationale for removing it does not cut it.
- Hopefully this won't be dismissed as "chatter"—sometimes it takes a bit of exposition to make a multi-faceted argument.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. And there is a massive difference between "war terrorism" and "state terrorism". To move fomr the former to the latter is synthetic. There are many tens of thousands of sources discussing the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and an incredibly tiny number, and none contemporaneous, use this term. But the article is clearly going to remain a worthless pile of crap for ever, thanks to the obduracy of the "I hate the US so this is terrorism" and "I love the US so this is not terrorism" camps, any attempt at sense and sanity is doomed to fail, we might as well just tag it as a {{crap article}} and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but the argument articulated by Jtrainor and seconded by Guy is quite wrongheaded, to put it charitably (for one thing if it was to be believed the academic discipline called "history" would basically have to fold up shop). Simply because a given word was not "widely used" at a given time obviously does not mean it cannot be employed at a later date to describe some event that took place during that time or the era in general. If that were the case we could not describe London circa 1700 as "pre-industrial," America during the 1950s as "homophobic," or the 16th century as a critical period in the history of "globalization." The fact that the idea of "state terrorism" was not really used during WWII (incidentally I believe the notion of "terrorism" goes back at least to the French Revolution) is completely irrelevant—employing new analytic categories to explain past events is pretty standard in scholarship. I'm rather astounded that I even had to type the preceding phrase. The "contemporaneous" view of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, if anything, less relevant then the viewpoint of a later era when better analysis was possible.
- Exactly. And there is a massive difference between "war terrorism" and "state terrorism". To move fomr the former to the latter is synthetic. There are many tens of thousands of sources discussing the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and an incredibly tiny number, and none contemporaneous, use this term. But the article is clearly going to remain a worthless pile of crap for ever, thanks to the obduracy of the "I hate the US so this is terrorism" and "I love the US so this is not terrorism" camps, any attempt at sense and sanity is doomed to fail, we might as well just tag it as a {{crap article}} and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Walzer uses the term "war terrorism" (I don't see how "war terrorism" and "state terrorism" are necessarily mutually exclusive concepts by the way, but that's a tangential point), however several others cited in the article accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism (see my previous comment) So, again, we have reliable sources that make the kind of "allegations" which are the topic of the article. Yes, that is very much a minority view and should be explained as such, but it is highly relevant to the topic. We don't have a rule against covering "historical revisionism" (whatever that means to either of you) and in fact we have a rule that noteworthy minority views are covered. There is nothing new in the preceding two comments and they only express the opinions of the authors without addressing the relevant issues head on.
- Regarding anti-Americanism or pro-Americanism, it's best we avoid those terms altogether. I'm an American and will always be one. I don't care for its rampant consumerism, its largely banal television programming, and a great many of the foreign policy decisions made in this country's history. However I like the kindness of folks in the Midwest, the bluntness of New Yorkers, the civic spirit of folks in New England, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Wu-Tang Clan, and even goddamn apple pie. So maybe I don't fit into either the pro or anti category, and maybe that's the case for some other folks here too. Maybe instead of wasting time on labeling editors, impugning their motives, and generally calling names, we can actually waste our time discussing content issues. In the meantime, I'll be waiting for some arguments for removing the Japan content which are even remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, that's easy. The entire section fails WP:V and WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, it's easy for you to say something instead of showing that what you are saying is either true or logical, esp. in the face of arguments that refute your dogmatic proclamation. You might as well proclaim that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, that easy to do. Its sad to see the blatant nature of your POV tendentious editing, edit warring, disrupting this article once again by blanking sections against consensus and without any valid reason supported by policy. I see you just reverted again. What good does that do, except possibly get you blocked or banned from this article/topic?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it passes WP:NPOV and WP:RS! Seriously though, you're going to have to explain how it fails those policies. I don't think it does so you need to explain your argument, not just cite policies with which we're all quite familiar.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, it's easy for you to say something instead of showing that what you are saying is either true or logical, esp. in the face of arguments that refute your dogmatic proclamation. You might as well proclaim that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, that easy to do. Its sad to see the blatant nature of your POV tendentious editing, edit warring, disrupting this article once again by blanking sections against consensus and without any valid reason supported by policy. I see you just reverted again. What good does that do, except possibly get you blocked or banned from this article/topic?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, that's easy. The entire section fails WP:V and WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The concept and meaning of "historical revisionism" that Jtrainor uses is apparently not the concept that most historians nor the American Historical Association use. See Historical revisionism (negationism) and Historical revisionism. The term has become pejorative and has too much ideological and semantic baggage. It has been corrupted to the point that it's no longer useful in reasonable discourse. For example, the term historical revisionism has been applied to the controversies surrounding the holocaust. Another example: Is it historical revisionism to change the long lasting legend that a few members of the last imperial family of Russia escaped being executed in 1918? In 2007 and 2008, DNA evidence finally identified all the family members, and all bodies have been accounted for, thus historically revising the previous version of two missing bodies, as well as the Anastasia pretenders. And even if the term terrorism wasn't widely used at the time, we are not writing for the world of 1945, rather for the world of the 21st century where it is used all the time. — Becksguy (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interestingly, if one is talking about the Vietnam War, the "revisionist" position is to defend the US decision to enter into and continually prosecute the conflict while arguing that the withdrawal was premature. To generally write negatively of the war is the "orthodox" position within the historical scholarship. The term has different meanings in different contexts—it can refer to the general idea of challenging dominant views on aspects of history, or it can be a certain "school" of thought within a sub-discipline of history (for example diplomatic historians who follow in the general vein of William Appleman Williams are often labeled "revisionists" whereas John Lewis Gaddis was at first considered a "post-revisionist" but is now more of a "traditionalist" - these labels would have completely different meanings in other sub-disciplines). Anyhow this issue is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand and I hope we can leave it to the side.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have readded the shorter version which reached consensus above, including by Ultramarine. For those who refuse to discuss issues on this page, and work on sandbox versions, you are removing yourselves from the "consensus." --I Write Stuff (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- A shorter version is fine, but arguably the most notable view in the longer version is that of Richard Falk and I think it's obviously a mistake to leave that out (better him than C.A.J. Coady I would think). Likewise Hugo Chavez should probably be mentioned, seeing as he is a sitting president and all (presidents don't often accuse either nations of committing "state terrorism" half a century ago, so it's pretty interesting when they do). The best thing to do is work off this stripped down version since that will hopefully be seen as a compromise and stop the stupid editing warring. I do think another paragraph would be okay though length wise. Also there are now a couple of errors in the footnote formatting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that Chavez should be included for the reason tha he is a sitting president and uses the term. It is far from interesting when someone like him uses the term because it has become a generic way for people like Chavez to slag off the US. He is so ridiculously biased that he would use it whether or not it is deserved. His use of it demonstrates his hatred for America, not that allegations of state terrorism are somehow credible. Indeed using him as a source undermines the article as a whole. We want serious, more impartial people who aren't out to get at the US by whatever means they can. John Smith's (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- For those who participated, the issues was size, and the issue of "morality" being used. I do not remember what I cut completely, but he did not make the morality based argument, feel free to swap things around, however try not to make it much larger as that general size was agreed on. If people would like to examine that, then explain in detail how it violates WP:Synth, or WP:V, etc. I would be glad, as well as I believe others would, to reply to concerns and edit as necessary. The argument of "historical revisionism" is unfortunately an act of WP:OR, as we can not make such a claim ourselves after reading through the material. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
A compromise version is better than an edit war, or nothing. It does contain both viewpoints, links back to the main article, and the size is appropriate for a summary section, per WP:SUMMARY. — Becksguy (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- In reading WP:SUMMARY I note the following: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." It seems to me that "The Debate" is reasonably classified as the "parent article", which is where the summarization should take place. This article is for the detailed treatment of the discussion of the event as an instance of state terrorism. Nevertheless we should be concerned about economy of presentation without being so restrictive so as to miss out on important themes or sources. As it stands, the article we now have is not too long, and the Japan issue is among the most important examples. I agree with BTP that the Falk material is important. I would also place the material from Selden very high on the list, for his role as a Japan specialist, his participation in national debates about the Enola Gay exhibit (btw this link is interesting [[27]]) and for his editing of the notable anthology "War and State Terrorism." I think more discussion of the principal themes is required so that we can come up with a more cogent presentation, which I believe is the real challenge (and not length). Incidentally, in the literature the transgression of morality is often linked to what critics believe is the progressive institutionalization of state terrorism. I am now off to re-read some of the source material shortly to see if I can come up with some ideas to economize and clarify the themes discussed.BernardL (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This article is more narrow to the topic and thus should allow for more depth of it, not the other way around. Those who want it deleted want the whole article deleted. Failing that they want to turn this article into a stub. It's an extension of AfD by other means, it would seem. But just like the Afd, this won't succeed thanks to WP policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? "The Debate" covers this instance of alleged state terrorism by the United States only; this article covers (in scope, though not in detail) all such instances. I don't see how this article could possibly be read as a daughter of "The Debate". (One is more specific than all, right?) I agree that the Japan example is among the most important examples, but it remains an example only. In "The Debate", it is the example. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. I think it is actually the section of this article concerning Japan which should be the seat of the details about events discussed as a state terrorist act. The "debate" article itself is a compilation of arguments from multiple viewpoints, requiring balancing, weighting, and necessary concision in light of the other camps in the "debate." From the perspective of the "debate" it is natural to minimize the details of the state terrorism arguments because in the overall perspective other more mainstream arguments require the weight due to them. The section in this "terrorism" article likewise requires balancing (including for NPOV) and weighting with the other sections of this article. I still think that this is the natural place to study U.S. terrorism in the context of the atom bombings in greater detail using a a wider range of sources and themes here, while concentrating on the main arguments/debating points in the "debate" article. Reliable sources have also the studied and described the continuity of state terrorism; the threads flowing through the earlier mass civilian bombing in Europe, to over sixty Japanese cities, continuing through the nuclear attacks and onto Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. as important themes in the discourse on U.S. state terrorism. Such discussion of the dynamic evolution of state terrorist institutions using Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an important instance in an evolutionary trajectory, goes well beyond the "debate" among scholars about the nuclear bombing acts of a specific time and place.BernardL (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- The reaction of just about anyone if told "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism" would be "What?". It is a fringe view at best and does not present a global view of the subject. As has been explained before here, if you want to make actions that were legitimate military actions by the standards of the time (or by this time, for that matter), you open up a very dangerous slippery slope. Perhaps the Revolutionary War should also be added? What about World War I, or the War of 1812? Where does it end? Jtrainor (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- It ends where the WP:V WP:RS sources end, obviously. You are not suggesting that we simply ignore WP:RS and WP:V and instead decide for ourselves what to add, regardless of the sources. Your Reductio ad absurdum is also faulty as the atomic bombings were incidents during a war, your reduction then examines entire wars. What would fit into your argument, is if the article was attempting to say the entirety WW2 was an act of terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. By the standards advocated by Jtrainor, we would have to scrap WP:V and WP:RS, and instead go out and ask any joe on the street what they think. If they didn't know something then we can't report on it. This would mean ending WP as an encylopedia and replacing it as a popular TV night show, something like that The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, perhaps? They go out in the street and ask just about anyone what they think such and such is, and get their uninformed opinion, for comedy. Its sad to see a wikipedian feel we should adopt this standard of knowledge. Absurd unless Jtrainor is making a joke. Sadly he seems serious.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Japan - break 1
A fringe view is, for example, that the world is flat. As proven repeatedly here, and in past discussions here and elsewhere, there is a significant and well sourced viewpoint that the atomic bombings in Japan were acts of state terrorism, regardless of the prevalence of the term at the time. Those sources that argue against that are in denial and/or touting a specific viewpoint for ideological purposes, much like the Holocaust denial proponents. Obviously there are different significant viewpoints about the bombings. That's why we don't make editing decisions that contravene or ignore what the reliable sources say on the subject. Fringe theory as a rationale for exclusion in this case has no legs. — Becksguy (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. The many quality and notable sources proves this is not a fringe view. Yes, it may be a minority view, but it's a significant and notable one. Since this is fits in exactly with what this article is supposed to report on, to refuse to report on it is inexcusable.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Becks, I don't think you can put words in people's mouths. I'm not saying that you are, but commentators may not agree that the bombings were state terrorism even if they are highly critical of them. I think that it is better to act cautiously if the term is not used by an individual. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and I disagree that there is consensus to keep the section. As happens all-too-frequently Giovanni is deciding that there is consensus off his own bat. And as Guy says, if POV-pushers keep chasing people away that invalidates any call for it. John Smith's (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- When the reason you do not want it included is because "people on the street will be surprised to read it," you are not presenting a point that goes against the existing consensus. You call it pushing people away, when they are asked to state in detail what the specific issues are. Guy has been asked 4 times to state specific sections and statements, instead he removes the question from his talk page or disengages here, or worse just goes about mocking the entire article. You have been asked to support your claims of WP:SYN by stating the specific statement in the section that is a violation of synthesis, and the two sources being used to get that statement, however you do not. If a true consensus appears, and it is made up of more then "I do not like it," and, "John Doe on the street will not know about this." Then we can discuss real issues and determine a real consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who has been chased away, how, and by whom? (The only example of someone "chased away" that comes to my mind, would be User:Stone put to sky, but that's surely not who's on your mind, right?) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stone wasn't chased away, he was banned for sockpuppetry. People have been chased away in the past - I may have wrongy to implied that happened recently.
- I Write Stuff, I was not discussing possible previous consensus. Giovanni quite clearly said that the consensus IS to keep the section, not that there was. Please do not mix the two up. There cannot be consensus based on majority support alone. And to discount opposition based on your own attitudes is not valid in forming consensus. John Smith's (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never argued majority, and I find it insulting that you would reply to me in such a manner that shows you did not read my comments at all. What you are describing as a lack of consensus is exactly the manipulation of a vote, instead of a discussion based on policy. The "remove crowd" has attempted to keep content out simply by stating "I do not like it" and since they do not, without policy based arguments, they feel that it prevents a consensus. This is a false reasoning, as consensus on Wikipedia is not a majority vote as you note, its further not a statement of everyone agreeing. The attempts to filibuster a section based on non-policy based arguments are ignored as such. If you, or anyone else for that matter, truly feel a section should not be included, you are free to argue that point on policy, in detail, and defend that position when challenged. However this is not congress, you can not prevent the inclusion of material by gathering a force who simply say no, instead of providing a detailed reason and supporting that reason against counter-arguments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- While there are currently voices saying 'remove'- those voices have failed to provide any policy backed reasons- despite being asked many many times - why material which is WP:N from WP:RS and is presented in a WP:NPOV manner should not be included. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who has been chased away, how, and by whom? (The only example of someone "chased away" that comes to my mind, would be User:Stone put to sky, but that's surely not who's on your mind, right?) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'd still like the section out, and think that people have provided good reasons for it, I've re-added the shorter version and compressed it a bit (we don't need peoples titles etc) in the interests of removing at least some of the reasons for edit warring. And I've semi-ed the page, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I question the 'obvious reasons' for the semi-protect - there have been 2 IP edits in the past 50 edits/15 days - edits which were seconded by existing accounts and so by no means vandalism. Rabbit has exponentially more outright IP vandalism and anyone making a request for semi-protection for Rabbit would be outright laughed at. If I weren't assuming good faith, I would think you protected it because the anon editor had views contrary to yours. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that those few people, like WMC, who are in favour of the outright removal of a section that easily conforms to wikipedia core policies are really in favour of what amounts to a form of censorship. (And no William, good reasons have not been provided, and the compelling arguments of BTP, I Write, Gio, et al. have not been effectively addressed.)BernardL (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I too don't see any obvious reason within policy to make this article sem-protect. In fact, the obvious thing is that WMC is using his admin powers again to further his own POV pushing on this article. What's new? Since he is an involved editor, he should go to the appropriate board to request semi-protect like anyone else--not protected it himself, and then revert (when he started this latest round of revert wars). The IP user's edits have been good, and it seems obvious the making it semi-protect is just a way to block that person from editing here against WMC POV. As far as the removal of good material, I object and ask that someone restore it.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hallo. I am the IP user from Hawaii. I am sorry that I edit with my IP only. I have an account too and will use that from on forwards. Regards.Olawe (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I still can not make edits and I am logged into my account now. Can someone explain how I can edit the article? Much appreciated. Aloha.Olawe (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The more things change the more the stay the same. Why are we still talking about the Japan section? That one is one of the better sections. The fire bombings of Tokyo and later the carpet bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and other parts of SE Asia are also part of the literature on State Terrorism that I see lacking in this article.
- It's good to see that the Phillipines section has been worked on. As a Phillipina myself, I endorse its contents. I may contribute some to the section myself.DrGabriela (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- You say you are from the Philippines? Did you see that Merzbow in his edit summary accused you of being a sock? He is accusing you of being a sock of Giovanni33. Could you clear that up please?BernardL (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that. I only know Giovanni33 from his edits on some of the terrorism articles that I generally agree with. I hope that clears the matter up for the record. I'm not sure how to better "clear up" Merzbow's confusions but I do resent the charge. I'm no expert on WP policies about "socks" but I don't give it too much thought as it appears to be a partisan-based allegation.DrGabriela (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- "She" is "within the same 30 mile radius as Giovanni33 (talk · contribs), Supergreenred (talk · contribs) and Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs)" per RFCU. - Merzbow (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, which means that it's possible for us to all meet in person since you are also within 30 miles of all these other accounts. Are you up for it? Let's organized a State-Terrorism Wiki-meet and discuss the content of this article in person, a work-shop.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- "She" is "within the same 30 mile radius as Giovanni33 (talk · contribs), Supergreenred (talk · contribs) and Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs)" per RFCU. - Merzbow (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that. I only know Giovanni33 from his edits on some of the terrorism articles that I generally agree with. I hope that clears the matter up for the record. I'm not sure how to better "clear up" Merzbow's confusions but I do resent the charge. I'm no expert on WP policies about "socks" but I don't give it too much thought as it appears to be a partisan-based allegation.DrGabriela (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- You say you are from the Philippines? Did you see that Merzbow in his edit summary accused you of being a sock? He is accusing you of being a sock of Giovanni33. Could you clear that up please?BernardL (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is really bad form to presume guilt in such a situation as this. Dr.Gabriela if what you say is true you should go to the appropriate arbitration page. I will say what exactly what is on my mind. This appears to be a great embarrassment, in fact a SHAME for user:Merxbow.BernardL (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's bad form to assume a fact that you don't know Merzbow, and then state it as if its an established fact, instead of your own assumption (that happens to be mistaken). You should have some healthy doubt about this. In the case of this editor, it's clear to anyone who looks her edits that she is not my socket-puppet.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- The audience is directed to this page to draw their own conclusions. I will "henceforth" say no more about this here. - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now there is no consensus to keep the Japan section, and no consensus to remove it. If there was consensus, it wouldn't get reverted so much. It is utterly pointless for either side to claim consensus in this instance, please stop it - especially you, Giovanni. The real question is whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines for content support its inclusion. They do. There are reliable, non-fringe sources making a notable claim. Therefore the existence of that claim is suitable material for Wikipedia. It's such a simple case when you look at it that way. If you have a problem with their reasoning because you think it is illogical or revisionist, then find a source that supports that perspective and include it. Your personal opinions that a source's views are poorly reasoned cannot be used as justification for removing them. The reliable sources own this page, not us. When I read that the atomic bombings had been interpreted by these sources as terrorism, I got a little shock. I'd never considered it that way before. I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not. But the reliable sources say it, and many of them are either notable persons or well-regarded experts of some sort, so it should be included. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
On the matter of whether Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have the full section and this article the summary, or vice versa, I think the case is largely moot. There is no parent and no child article in this case, these are "sister articles", to coin a term. They are both high-level articles in their own right. Both of them include a number of sub-points, and whether the atomic bombings were terrorism is a sub-point of equal weight for both of them. In a Venn diagram they'd be two circles with some overlap, not one inside the other. The topic deserves a section in both of them. One of those sections should be in summary form, and link to the other, because duplication is not the wiki way. But because they are sister articles the only way to decide which should have the full section, is to consider what will best serve Wikipedia readers. I haven't formed a certain opinion on that, I just wanted to frame the discussion in a more useful way. But consider: should a reader who is interested in the atomic bombings be given a link to a page that discusses lots of other allegations of US terrorism? I suspect not. I think that it would give undue weight to the allegations page for the atomic bombings page to be a gateway to it. It's like a link saying "so you're interested in the questionable morality of the US action in this case? Well boy, have we got some other contentious stuff about the US for you!". So I tentatively support the arrangement suggested/created by Ultramarine, where this article has a summary of the full section, which is on the Debate page. That way this page will lead to the Debate page, but not vice versa. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful comment. One reason I'd advance for making this page the summary is that its a hotbed of reversion (I'm assuming the other page isn't). Stabalising at least one portion of it would help; and people interested in the text could read it from a stable page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- My thinking on this might be a little bit different. I believe that the level of discussion of the "state terrorism" angle at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. There is an enormous debate in the scholarly literature about the atomic bombings in Japan. There are two main schools and several key questions. Recent scholarship has taken advantage of new archival materials from the USSR and Japan. The extent to which the idea of "state terrorism" is discussed is essentially nil (in an earlier version of this article, I put in a paragraph explaining that, with sourcing, but that was removed at some point). In an article on the debate over the bombings, the "state terror" angle should receive, at best, a paragraph. As it stands there is a huge section on that topic, while Gar Alperovitz and his book Atomic Diplomacy (which literally began the academic debate over 40 years ago) is not even mentioned (not even in the bilbliography!, I'll actually fix that now). That article is about one of the most heated and critical debates among historians of the 20th century diplomacy and it should be based largely on the historiography, which simply does not discuss "state terrorism."
- As such I think it makes far more sense to have the bulk of the specific material here. The "Hiroshima was state terrorism" view is a very fringe (yet notable) viewpoint. This article is by its very nature one filled with fringe but notable viewpoints and thus this should be the home for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stuff. It can be mentioned in the other article, but to give any more than 2 or 3% of that article (and I'm serious about those numbers) to the state terror position is a major NPOV problem. What I would actually recommend is a paragraph (probably not even a section) on the state terrorism angle with a link within the text directly to the full section in this article.
- It should also be pointed out that the only reason there is such a big section on state terrorism in the "debate" article is because the material was created over here. 99 out 100 (probably more actually) historians in the field creating an article on the debate topic from scratch would never even think to include a section on state terrorism. They'd probably start with the Alperovitz book and go from there. Still, the person who created that article actually did a very good job creating it from scratch.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to make some good points, but in turn if it is really so much of a fringe argument in any scheme of things it shouldn't be given huge amounts of space here either. That's why I support the shorter version and not the longer version of this section. - Merzbow (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, and that's a reply I would have expected and a rational one. However as I said this is an article about fringe views (though some of the views expressed in the article here are less fringe than others). We have a whole article on the Flat Earth Society, which is about a billion times more fringe than the stuff here (I hope we can all agree on that!). It's fine for Wikipedia to cover fringe views in some detail when they are notable, and the repeated AfD's of this thing prove that the community thinks the issues discussed in this article are notable. That said, I have long supported keeping each section in this article of a manageable length, i.e. a few paragraphs each, and support that for the Japan section as well. I was fine with the shorter version, though I felt a couple of crucial quotes/comments were left out. As to this particular discussion, I'm simply saying that the longer discussion of the "Hiroshima was state terror" argument (however long it is) should be in this article, not in the article on the debate over the bombings.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it would be WP:undue to include a full discussion of the "terrorism" issue on the Debate page, but not WP:undue to include it in full on this page, that's a good argument for having the summary on the Debate page. That argument over-rides my argument for arranging it the other way, because my argument was not based in any particular policy or guideline. On those grounds I'm swinging towards your suggestion until some contrary reasoning is put forward. I agree with you that it would not be WP:undue to have it in full here, as it resembles the other detailed discussions on this page: seemingly minority views from expert and/or notable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, and that's a reply I would have expected and a rational one. However as I said this is an article about fringe views (though some of the views expressed in the article here are less fringe than others). We have a whole article on the Flat Earth Society, which is about a billion times more fringe than the stuff here (I hope we can all agree on that!). It's fine for Wikipedia to cover fringe views in some detail when they are notable, and the repeated AfD's of this thing prove that the community thinks the issues discussed in this article are notable. That said, I have long supported keeping each section in this article of a manageable length, i.e. a few paragraphs each, and support that for the Japan section as well. I was fine with the shorter version, though I felt a couple of crucial quotes/comments were left out. As to this particular discussion, I'm simply saying that the longer discussion of the "Hiroshima was state terror" argument (however long it is) should be in this article, not in the article on the debate over the bombings.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to make some good points, but in turn if it is really so much of a fringe argument in any scheme of things it shouldn't be given huge amounts of space here either. That's why I support the shorter version and not the longer version of this section. - Merzbow (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree wit Bigtimepeace, regarding undue weight for in-depth presentation of this topic within the main article on the debate. In fact, my preferred weight on that main article was simply a two word mention, "state terrorism." However, I'm not opposed to increasing it to a sentence or two, at most. My only disagreement with BTP (and he may be correct as history is more his expertise) is that this subject is very fringe. From my reading of the many notable and prominent thinkers who make this claim, it is a significant minority POV. If it was fringe, we'd not be able to find so many reliable sources and experts giving voice to it.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notable people do make the claim (Falk and Zinn are qualified to speak on an issue like this), but within the historical scholarship it just isn't discussed from what I've seen. It's out there and worth covering, but in the grand scheme of the debate over the bombings (both scholarly and in popular debate, which is a significant component as well), discussion of the question of state terrorism is, I'm almost certain, far less than 1% of the total debate. Again though, I think it's utterly appropriate to cover that view here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree wit Bigtimepeace, regarding undue weight for in-depth presentation of this topic within the main article on the debate. In fact, my preferred weight on that main article was simply a two word mention, "state terrorism." However, I'm not opposed to increasing it to a sentence or two, at most. My only disagreement with BTP (and he may be correct as history is more his expertise) is that this subject is very fringe. From my reading of the many notable and prominent thinkers who make this claim, it is a significant minority POV. If it was fringe, we'd not be able to find so many reliable sources and experts giving voice to it.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I concur with the arguments maintaining that the longer version belongs in this article and the summary belongs in the “debate” article for reasons of appropriate weighting (and others), since I have already made those points above in the “Japan” section, before the break.
It is not at all actually “so much of a fringe argument.” If you look at the range of reliable sources, it's not just historians who have weighed in on the issue. Moreover, I recall, not too long ago, that Merzbow was arguing that the views of Niall Ferguson should be included in wikipedia regarding an issue concerning which he was not known to have a specialty because “he's a Harvard professor. If he had written this on the back of a Chinese fortune cookie with a toothpick, it would still count as a reliable source.” [[29]]. Well, here we have numerous profs with significant credentials and they are not merely writing op-eds, or with toothpicks on the back of fortune cookies. It’s mighty strange how things change once the shoe is on the other foot.. As I have already suggested above, those editors who took the position that the Japan section should be deleted (including William M. Connolley), were really favouring a position of censorship. Censorship of whom? Well some, but hardly all, of the distinguished scholars who claim the atomic bombings were acts of terrorism include the following:
Mark Selden (phd Yale, prof of history/sociology Binghamton) Michael Mann (phd Oxford, prof of Sociology UCLA) Walden Bello (prof Sociology Uni of Philippines) C.A.J. Coady (prof philosophy Melbourne) Igor Primoratz (prof philosophy Hebrew Uni , Jerusalem) Alvin Y. So (director and prof Social Sciences, Hong Kong Uni) Howard Zinn (prof polisci Boston) Michael Walzer (prof philosophy Princeton) Richard Falk (prof International Law Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur) Douglas Lackey (phd Yale, prof philosophy, City University NY) BernardL (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- In addition to Bernard's scholarly references just above, a quote from the below cited book by Francis Harbour (who is also a professor) seems appropriate here to illustrate the coverage of that decision in other venues. The U.S. decision to use atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most closely examined (and best documented) decisions in recent history, and one of of the most emotionally charged. Almost everyone who has ever thought about World War II has a strong opinion about whether the bombing was necessary and about whether it was right or wrong. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing provoked dozens of articles in major newspapers and magazines around the country and a spate of hotly debated television documentaries. Opinions remain politically charged as well. (Harbour 1999, page 68). It's not a "fringe argument" by any stretch. — Becksguy (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you're referring to my comments above Becksguy, then I think you may have misread them. Of course the debate over the atomic bombing of Japan is not fringe—it's one of the more notable and heated historical debates in recent memory. Saying the bombings were state terrorism is, however, most certainly a fringe view within the scholarship (and for that matter within popular opinion). Of course there are reliable sources for that view and they should be covered here. But almost none (or possible none) of the sources mentioned by Bernard are actually experts on the history behind the bombings in Japan (which is not to say that they are not reliable sources for this article, I think most or all of them are). With respect to Merzbow's point regarding Ferguson cited by Bernard, I argued vociferously against that on another page and am applying the same standard here in discussing the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. That article should mainly reflect the views and arguments which are most commonly articulated per NPOV. It's a simple fact that the "state terrorism" argument is very much to the side of and tangential to the main arguments about the bombings, and that that view is not heavily discussed by those most involved in the debate (against Bernard's sources above, one could put literally hundreds of books and academic articles which say nothing of state terrorism). We aren't really in that much disagreement here (the Japan stuff belongs mainly in this article, and should be mentioned in the "Debate" one) so I don't want to harp on this, but I think it's indisputable that the view that Hiroshima was state terrorism is that of an extremely small minority. It still clearly warrants coverage in this article though and mention in the other one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't have any disagreement. It's semantics--fringe, minority view, etc. I suspect there are different definitions for this , and that for WP's purpose, fringe means we can't find any reliable source for a view, and boarders on OR, i.e. only found on blogs, etc. That would make a view fringe in my book. On the other hand if numerous reliable sources can be found, its at least a significant minority view, more than enough to justify inclusion in an article dedicated to this particular view (state terrorism) but not enough for an in-depth discussion on a main article (such as the debate article). As I said we are all in agreement here on what matters. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you're referring to my comments above Becksguy, then I think you may have misread them. Of course the debate over the atomic bombing of Japan is not fringe—it's one of the more notable and heated historical debates in recent memory. Saying the bombings were state terrorism is, however, most certainly a fringe view within the scholarship (and for that matter within popular opinion). Of course there are reliable sources for that view and they should be covered here. But almost none (or possible none) of the sources mentioned by Bernard are actually experts on the history behind the bombings in Japan (which is not to say that they are not reliable sources for this article, I think most or all of them are). With respect to Merzbow's point regarding Ferguson cited by Bernard, I argued vociferously against that on another page and am applying the same standard here in discussing the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. That article should mainly reflect the views and arguments which are most commonly articulated per NPOV. It's a simple fact that the "state terrorism" argument is very much to the side of and tangential to the main arguments about the bombings, and that that view is not heavily discussed by those most involved in the debate (against Bernard's sources above, one could put literally hundreds of books and academic articles which say nothing of state terrorism). We aren't really in that much disagreement here (the Japan stuff belongs mainly in this article, and should be mentioned in the "Debate" one) so I don't want to harp on this, but I think it's indisputable that the view that Hiroshima was state terrorism is that of an extremely small minority. It still clearly warrants coverage in this article though and mention in the other one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Japan - break 2 - The Targeting Committee
I found a book that discusses the targeting committee's selection of civilian targets for the two atomic weapons in 1945. The contents are available via Google Books. This is in addition to the other sources on the subject.
Harbour, Frances Vryling (1999). Thinking About International Ethics: Moral Theory And Cases From American Foreign Policy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0813328470.
Part II of the book (pages 67-144) discusses the ethical, moral, practical, and political issues around the selection of the targets and the bombings.
Because of the desire to use civilian terror and destruction of civilian property, "to make a profound psychological impression," a just war theorist would have to conclude that the committees' real targets were civilian, not military. The committees intended to use the destruction of civilians and their property as an end in itself and as a direct causal means.
(Harbour, p 134) This is, of course, just one quote. But it does use the word "terror", as committed by a state. An interesting read, and it expresses opposing viewpoints, including several expressed here. — Becksguy (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is a great find, Becksguy. It's exactly the reference that was needed to support the existing text concerning the Targeting Committee selection of civillians to make a psychological impact.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nice bit of novel synthesis there. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
To say that this quotation is synthesis looks to me like a fatal misunderstanding of what synthesis is. Synthesis means taking an element from source A and combining it with an element from source B, and deriving a new element C. It's impossible to have synthesis without two or more sources, by definition. If you believe otherwise, please explain in detail. But to me, since there is only one source in this case, that dog won't hunt. — Becksguy (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like WMC is back to his deleting this material against consensus. I'll restore it but add the above reference to support the Targeting Committee claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- What consensus would that be? Seems to me there are three views around, none of which has consensus: No Japan section, short Japan section, and long Japan section. WMC seems to be compromising here, reverting to a version with a short section. For my part, I think the short section is best, but couldn't that also be an acceptable compromise to all parties? Please? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The target committee document is a primary source which should not be used. Also the interpretation given of this document is incorrect. Finally, regarding "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers". The cited sources do not mention the target committee or make claims of terrorism. Not to mention no opposing views are given.Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- What consensus would that be? Seems to me there are three views around, none of which has consensus: No Japan section, short Japan section, and long Japan section. WMC seems to be compromising here, reverting to a version with a short section. For my part, I think the short section is best, but couldn't that also be an acceptable compromise to all parties? Please? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Change title
Can we please change the title and focus of this article to be a proper NPOV basis? Paramilitary actions of the United States would be a neutral title that does not make value judgments, but lets us cover the relevant historical events. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. "Paramilitary" is a factual, correct word that covers both. Also notice that this title focuses on the facts of what actually happened, rather than mere "allegations". Jehochman Talk 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That might make a good article, but its different than this one. For example, the atomic bombings would not fall under "paramilitary actions."Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm down with that title. It seems to be the most neutral one ever proposed. In addition, it would give the article some more scope and end several arguments over what should be in it. Jtrainor (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now that would be an article I'd probably vote to delete (Unless the term "grudges' became a notable conceptual term, and we had lot of reliable sources from experts in the field of "grudgology" that discuss it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to create your article on covert paramilitary actions and this can be a daughter article focusing on those actions that have involved terroristic aspects (and other actions by the US that have terroristic aspects). (And thanks once again Guy, for your always so insightful commentary)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you going to rename all articles with "terrorism" in their title, Jehochman? After all, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." And honestly, Jtrainor, I'd say the last thing this article needs is a wider scope. Please don't. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all we need, another name change after the multiple moves so far (including back to one of the earlier ones). The problem with this article is that the subject matter is a battleground regardless of the article name, and changing the name again is not going to fix that. And a wider scope will just make it that much more difficult to reach consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article is a horrible mess and probably should be stubbed, retitled and restarted. "Allegations of" is a very bad thing to put in any title because it makes the article an instant coatrack for POV pushing. Either the US has supported paramilitary groups or extrajudicial killings, or they have not, per the reliable sources. If they have, then we should describe what happened with neutral, non-judgmental language. Paramilitary actions of the United States and Extrajudicial killings by the United States might both be legitimate topics. The first would cover things like Bay of Pigs and the latter could cover things like the assassination of Ernesto Guevara. We need to focus on the objective facts, not the arguments and controversies. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article title should read: "State Terrorism by the United States". Although I dislike the neologism of "terrorism", it has unfortunately been weaved through the public consciousness. Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Terrorism" is a propagandistic term. It is highly subjective and highly disputed, whether applied to the United States, or other nations. I like the idea of shortening the title, but can we use a term that is objective? That's why I proposed "Paramilitary actions of the United States". Perhaps "Attacks against civilians by the United States" or "War crimes by the United States". The My Lai Massacre would be one. These are all object terms that allow us to determine whether the thing happened or not. "Terrorist" is too subjective because there is no generally accepted definition of what is terrorism and what isn't. A terrorist is somebody you don't like who has used or threatened violence. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Jehochman. Let me address your arguments, and express why I disagree. I understand your wanting to make the subject less charged, and more mainstream. Terrorism is indeed a controversial term, esp. when it comes to applying to particular political entities, not the least of which are states. But this fact is not so problematic that we can't cover it in a NPOV manner. There are scholarly standards for terrorism. Yes, some people call terrorists freedom fighters, and we can report on that, but the two are in fact not mutually exclusive. And, we can report facts here objectively. Keep in mind that notable POV's from experts are themselves facts. Facts about their views. Views of notable experts about an important and growing social and academic discourse regarding the phenomenon termed "state terrorism" is an encyclopedic subject/topic. Articles as these should be able to present an intelligent discussion of the nature of this phenomenon, reflecting the discourse found within academia, and the many books on the subject. This can be presented in a manner that is not propagandistic. If we avoided all terms and concepts that were akin to this subject, wikipedia would be significantly bereft of important areas of knowledge. Facts of notable world views, philosophical systems, outlooks, methods, political trends, etc. can all be reported factually in keeping with NPOV. This article is no different in that respect. The only thing that makes it more politically charged (among US edtors) is the fact that the discussion of terrorism focuses on the actions of that country, the United States. We can cover the same actions under other conceptual frameworks, yes, but that just amounts to censoring this very legitimate and scholarly viewpoint: that of the conceptual framework of state-terrorism as applied to the various historical actions by the US. Various scholarly have synthesized the events to give them a meaning and interpretation under this concept and WP should report on it and discuss this intelligently and in a NPOV manner.
- "Terrorism" is a propagandistic term. It is highly subjective and highly disputed, whether applied to the United States, or other nations. I like the idea of shortening the title, but can we use a term that is objective? That's why I proposed "Paramilitary actions of the United States". Perhaps "Attacks against civilians by the United States" or "War crimes by the United States". The My Lai Massacre would be one. These are all object terms that allow us to determine whether the thing happened or not. "Terrorist" is too subjective because there is no generally accepted definition of what is terrorism and what isn't. A terrorist is somebody you don't like who has used or threatened violence. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article title should read: "State Terrorism by the United States". Although I dislike the neologism of "terrorism", it has unfortunately been weaved through the public consciousness. Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Covering other subjects about US foreign policies is fine, but it's a related but different subject. Many are already are covered, and should be in the See Also section here, such as Covert U.S. regime change actions, CIA Sponsored Coups, US invasions, State Terrorism, Terrorism, American Empire, etc. If we change the title its vital that the term Terrorism is kept in the title, as there is a large and growing literature within Terrorology that discusses the US in this vein. One term that is closely associated with it, and can be added to the title is "Political Violence." So if we keep Terrorism and Political Violence, I'd support it. It does not increase the scope so much that it dilutes the specialty nature of this subject, but opens it up for less bickering, and more discussion of the topics. Again, that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism" is not a problem; 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. Thus there is no inherent reason a neutral article can't be written about this subject.
- 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 state terrorism committed by the US (allegations of it, rather), and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's surprising because there are pretty big coats on that rack. Most of the content on Central America and Japan have nothing to do with terrorism let alone terrorism by the United States yet the coat was hung here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- You must be reading a different article. Can you quote some content on Japan or C.A in this article that has "nothing to do with terrorism..."? I challenge you to back up that claim, substantiate it please. If you are telling the truth, it should be easy for you to do. I do find it odd that you never let anyone know of this huge problem before, if it really does exist. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's surprising because there are pretty big coats on that rack. Most of the content on Central America and Japan have nothing to do with terrorism let alone terrorism by the United States yet the coat was hung here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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 state terrorism committed by the US (allegations of it, rather), and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Here are the items that have nothing to do with terrorism.
3 Specific allegations against the US by region
3.1 Japan (1945)
3.2 Cuba (1956-present)
3.3 Nicaragua (1979-90)
3.4 Guatemala (1954-96)
3.6 El Salvador (1980-92)
I've opposed these items since I first edited but it's pointless to argue with the army of POV puppet warriors. We have articles on all those countries so building this coat rack article for fringe POV views is problematic. It's the "List of things we don't like" article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is not a response. I asked for specific text. Quote the language that you has nothing to do with terrorism. Of course, this is not your own personal POV that we care about. You understand that right? What you are alleging is that there is off-topic content in these sections that has nothing to do with the claims of State Terrorism, according to the sources presented. That should be your claim. Fine. Now please support it by quoting the relevant text, and explain how the sources do not support their relevance to the topic, state terrorism. I've read those sections and I can't find anything that isn't directly supported by the sources claims of US involvement with State Terrorism. You say it's pointless to argue, but you have yet to even make an argument, even one time. So you can't claim its pointless to argue when you have never made the effort yet.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The title of this article was "State Terrorism by the United States" for a period in early 2007. If we can't even agree on a title, how are we going to agree on content, one wonders. However, the term terrorism does have a definition—with several essential elements that all the definitions include—and that's what this article has been about, despite multiple name changes. And although the term has also been use in propaganda by various individuals/groups/countries, it still has a core meaning with more than sufficient academic sources. Deleting the word terrorism from the title would change the essential nature of the article and then it would be about another subject, several of which already have articles. I have to say I'm loosing hope that this article will stabilize unless people really work at it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni, as long as you're trying to get the Hiroshima + Nagasaki stuff included in here, I'm not going to take any arguments from you that this article is not a coatrack even remotely seriously. Jtrainor (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well you've never shown yourself to be a serious editor as far as this article is concerned, anyway, so no biggie there.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware the purpose of the article is "everything under the sun that anyone has ever described as an act of terrorism by the United States that has ever appeared in print that can be referenced" including acts of war characterized as such. (I did note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't appear in the article as of this moment.) As for "serious" editors, "dismissive" <> "discourse." The article doesn't have to be a coatrack, but it certainly is at this point given its title and structure.
I mean, really, an opposing viewpoints section that states democracies have killed more people than totalitarian regimes? Are we also counting democracies that were attacked by totalitarian regimes as alleged aggressors?Never critique before morning coffee. —PētersV (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)- Ummm - please re-read the actual article - you are basing your position on items that are not factually true. (see specifically that Japan/Nagasaki/Hiroshima is in the article and that the article says democracies kill fewer people than dictatorships). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware the purpose of the article is "everything under the sun that anyone has ever described as an act of terrorism by the United States that has ever appeared in print that can be referenced" including acts of war characterized as such. (I did note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't appear in the article as of this moment.) As for "serious" editors, "dismissive" <> "discourse." The article doesn't have to be a coatrack, but it certainly is at this point given its title and structure.
Um... The Japan section is in the current, fully protected version of the article. And no one has ever said that this article should contain "everything under the sun" described as terrorism committed by the US. Also, coatrack does not apply here, as adequately explained before per the meaning of coatrack. This article is about acts of terrorism committed by the US, as claimed by reliable sources, not terrorism by any other country or organization, or about acts of war that meet the international laws on the conduct of war, in which terrorism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity do not. This rack is conspicuous for it's absence of coats. Even those that seek to deny the illegality of the bombings are concerned. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable." And finally, also as adequately demonstrated before, the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are reliably sourced as acts of terrorism by a state. Yes, there are also sources that say different, so we include both. As we should. To delete the section is censorship and a disservice to our readers. — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Japan section is full of quality sources and some notable ones are even being left out (ie: Michael Mann prof Sociology UCLA; Douglas Lackey, prof philosophy City Uni NY; Igor Primoratz prof philosophy Hebrew University,etc.) There were some vapid claims about a lack of material on Latin America. There is in fact plenty. To give two examples: 1. Before the mass deletions, the Nicaragua section contained the following from Greg Grandin, one of the foremost historians of Latin America: “Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in America’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” [71] In his analysis, Grandin emphasizes that the behaviour of the U.S. backed-contras was particularly inhumane and vicious: "In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.” [72]. 2. A good general reference concerning the U.S. role in state terror in Latin America is: When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror.University of Texas Press 2005”BernardL (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Afghani Islamists
Why doesn't this article mention the US funding and arming of Afghani Islamists? The Communist terrorism article considers every group supported by the Soviet Union to be "Communist terrorists", so shouldn't this article consider the Islamists to be "U.S. terrorists"? 129.215.37.190 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the charge is made in a reliable source by someone whose opinion on the subject would be notable, such a section is a candidate for inclusion. If you have sources, please create a sandbox and draft of the section for other editors to review and comment on. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Iran busts CIA terror network
This is pretty interesting. [30]
The group’s plans were devised in the U.S., according to the announcement, which added that they had planned to carry out a number of acts such as bombing scientific, educational, and religious centers, shooting people, and making public places in various cities insecure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmegan (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Announcement. By the Iranian intelligence service, which is not a reliable source for such a thing at all. Furthermore, the Tehran Times is affiliated with the Islamic Propagation Organization, which is responsible for translating and distributing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in English.
Also, given your only contribution is to this talk page, I shall assume you are another sock until proven otherwise. Jtrainor (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a perfectly reliable source, and Jtrainor needs to review WP:AGF.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I rather doubt the former, but I'd sign to the latter. — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How is it not reliable? The article is just reporting what the intelligence service announced. Is the Iranian intelligence service not a good enough source for an allegation of terrorism? Interesting way of running things around here ay. And I'm not a "sock", I just don't want to associate my normal account with this controversial article. I have never edited in this article with my main. Tone down the hostility yeesh..Parmegan (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni, you'd say an upside down burning cross was a reliable source if it had something negative of the US written on it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please remain civil. Lets keep the discussion on the article and the content we're discussing, not on the contributers. Personal attacks will get us nowhere fast. Now please explain why you think this source is unreliable. Do you think Tehrantimes.com made the announcement up? Parmegan (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I explained why the Tehran Times is unreliable above already. As for anything the Iranian government says concerning the US, that is obvious and needs no clarification whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have not answered my question. Do you think the Tehrantimes made the announcement up? If that's not the case, then the validity of the source is not relevant by your own admission. And regarding the actual report, whether or not the accusations are true is not relevant either. They are allegations, and that's what this article is for. When a countries intelligence service makes an announcement, no matter what country, that announcement is ALWAYS relevant. Readers can decide for themselves if they're telling the truth. I find it baffling that some random nobody on wikipedia would actually have the gall to try and withhold this type of information from reaching the public. Parmegan (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whoah! Wikipedia is neither the only nor the first way information reaches the public! Try Wikinews perhaps? Or wait until others pick up this item – if there is anything to it, I know of plenty of newspapers I'm sure'll make sure it reaches the public – and when it happens, we just may have a look at it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This claim is without sufficient reliable sources currently, and can't be used. It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and there isn't enough to verify this. — Becksguy (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Becksguy and jtrainor. There is no reliable source here. The Iranian government, the ultimate source of the assertion, is not a reliable source. Noroton (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Chile
The below was archived a little too soon. Due to protection were not were able to insert the material. I reproduce it here so editors can see there is consensus to add this material as relevant to the subject, given multiple reliable sources asserting the claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a section that is long over due. The US involvement in Chile against Allende is quote infamous. Here is an adequate source--the book: "The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression" by Prof. Michael Stohl, and Prof. George A. Lopez; Greenwood Press, 1984. Page 51:
More recently, in the period 1970-1973, the United States worked on a number of levels to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. In addition to nonterroristic strategies such as bribery after the election campaign, the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile. The CIA was implicated in the assassination of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, who was selected as a target because he refused to prevent Allende from taking office. "The United States government attempted to foment a coup, it discused coup plans with the Chileans later convicted of Schneider's abduction, it advocated his removal as a step toward overturning the results of a free election, it offered a payment of $50,000 for Schneider's kidnapping and it supplied the weapons for this strategy." 25 After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal. At least $7 million was authorized by the United States for CIA use in the destabilizing of Chilean society. This included financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"). Finally, in September 1973 the Allende government was overthrown in a brutal and violent military coup in which the United States was intimately involved. The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society." Any objections to the section on Chile?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no official documents or other evidence showing that the US was involved in the coup which succeeded as discussed in the main article on this. There may have been US involvement in coup attempts before this. But again coups are not state terrorism. This is not a general US criticisms article. Regarding the alleged support for Patria y Libertad this could possible be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Coups are not terrorism, but terrorism may be used for many ends, including coups.
- "In addition to nonterroristic strategies [...] the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile." That's an accusation of terrorism right there. Who are these professors, Stohl and Lopez? What weight to they carry? Do other scholars corroborate? — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies". It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stohl is well know, cited and I would say respected, certainly someone who works in the field, Google Scholar. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies". It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the source is a reliable one and the authors are clearly making the claim, as Sidhekin point out. They claim that the United States embarked on actions to destabilizing of Chilean society, and describe this as terror. They also state the US supported "right-wing terrorist paramilitary group" as well. These two claims, both direct and indirect, more than meet the burden of proof for inclusion, straw man arguments aside.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the accusation of state terror? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right above you. Its even in italics and made bold. Can't miss it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I would prefer is an actual accusation. The author, based on what I can see above, never really says that the United States has committed state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe, as Sidhekin and others have pointed out that the above passage does make an accusation of state terrorism very clearly. So we should use that. Still, I've always said that its better to have multiple reliable sources that support the same claims. So in that vein, here is another source, which might state the case in a way you might better prefer to see.
The source is one we are familiar with here as reliable. The book is: State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism by Frederick H. Gareau. He has a chapter on Chile that goes into some detail, but here are some of his relevant conclusions:
"Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact. That he was a graduate of an American military school and received at least one payment from the agency makes the charge more plausible. But the extent of Washington's role was further clarified..."
Here he then talks about DINA and states concludes that "The United States took charge of the overall coordination of counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries."
"Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region. This much is known. How centralized the coordination was is a more difficult question to answer. How much influence was exercised by Washington in the decision to commit terrorism is a much harder question to answer...The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." Page 78-79.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- here is another source... "“Chile became the third Latin American country to institutionalize state terrorism. Unlike their counterparts in Brazil and Uruguay, the Chilean military did not temporize. They were not interested in preserving even a façade of civilian governance, and upon overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 they quickly abolished or appropriated virtually every institution that had the potential to oppose them. Unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshall, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end. …The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers- and in some countries, campesinos- had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” (Wright, Thomas C. State Terrorism and Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, 29)BernardL (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. And for the same source above, on page 87: "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there appears to be further objections in light of the above sources, I think we have consensus to add this material in a Chile section. I'll do so shortly.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, section finally added using the sources above. I look forward to improvements of the section. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question for others. Is using an original source OR? I see that two sections was taken out for this reason by another editor. I looked and everything was sourced, tho. ??! I d0 not see the problem. I don't see anywhere on this discussion site where any editor talks about this problem either? Lastly my other question is why are two sections being removed if the problem is one source in one? I would like someone to explain all this. Thank you all.Olawe (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)