Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 410: | Line 410: | ||
:::::Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
::::::Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::: |
:::::Scholarly endeavors as the criterion for inclusion is wrong; notability may be enough for inclusion in this type of article. The standards for historical/scientific articles are different than one about a political opinion article, such as this one. Note that we have President Chavez, who does not have scholarly endeavors, either. But we report his views. The standards in this article include both one of notability and one of high academic quality (the latter is better). Heads of state are automatically very notable. Rev. Writes, may not reach that level of notability, even though his views have been all over the mainstream media. Perhaps if he kept speaking out and became known for these views more so than his link with Obama, then he might be ok for inclusion. I'm ok either way. However, his views should be in his own article where we can put in a wiki-link to this article.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:25, 6 May 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Operation Mongoose
Lots of background material not making accusations of state terrorism. All duplicated in the Operation Mongoose article. Should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The background material is topical and not excessive, and flows well with the rest. There are three fairly tight paragraphs, each one representing a different phase.BernardL (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
For wordsmithing reasons, I would like to replace the first two sentances in Operation Mongoose:
- "A prime focus of the Kennedy administration was the removal of Fidel Castro from power. To this end it implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations against the island .[1]"
with
- In 1961, the Kennedy administration implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations intended to overthrow the Communist regime in Cuba, including its leader Fidel Castro.[2]
Is that wording supported by the current source? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"Mongoose was led by Edward Lansdale in the Defense Department and William King Harvey at the CIA. Samuel Halpern, a CIA co-organizer, conveyed the breadth of involvement: “CIA and the U. S. Army and military forces and Department of Commerce, and Immigration, Treasury, God knows who else — everybody was in Mongoose. It was a government-wide operation run out of Bobby Kennedy's office with Ed Lansdale as the mastermind.”"
"Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, raised the point that according to the documentary record, directly after the first executive committee (EXCOMM) meeting that was held on the missile crisis, Attorney General Robert Kennedy “convened a meeting of the Operation Mongoose team” expressing disappointment in its results and pledging to take a closer personal attention on the matter. Kornbluh accused RFK of taking “the most irrational position during the most extraordinary crisis in the history of U. S. foreign policy”, remarking that “Not to belabor the obvious, but for chrissake, a nuclear crisis is happening and Bobby wants to start blowing things up.”[19]."
Examples of general background material duplicated in the main article. If no concrete objections it should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Japan again
I've trimmed Japan. It was far too long and there is already an excellent article on this subject William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Trimmed? I would not call it a trim. You blanked it to nothing. That is like saying an AfD vote to delete is really just a "trim."--And I note you wanted this article deleted. Also your claim that there is another article where this information already is discussed is a fabrication: 1. It doesnt exist, and 2. This IS the place for it.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That do make the section neutral. The Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki article discuss the bombings extensively. Much of material here was just condemnations or rhetorical questions with little analysis.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ryan Paddy reverted said edits. Ryan can you provide your reasoning? I saw the explanation you wrote but can you go into detail with your problems with the section? Hooper (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The revert in question is this [1]. I'm not sure what RP means by barely discussed; it has one of the quotes (from M Walzer) from this page in. The difference is, that page doesn't have a large pile of quotes saying the same thing, which this page (unfortunately) does have. Once again, it looks like people just kept on dumping in extra quotes, even though there were more than enough already William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Trimming Japan (1945) to a single sentence is a poor way of approaching "bloat", it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be edited down in a rational manner. Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki discusses the bombings, but barely mentions terrorism. If it were to include allegations of terrorism, it would have to have a whole section to cover the discussion. Is that what is being proposed? If not, where is all the relevant, well sourced material that WMC is trying to delete going to go?--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not oppose expanding the debate article for material not already there. Various condemnations like Chavez's could well be included. No argument or analysis but he is notable person.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure the present rather terse version could be somewhat expanded. But not to anything like its previous length. It should be edited down in a rational manner - is there any evidence that this was happening? I don't think so. The section was a long laundry-list of quotes that repeated each other. Clearly people felt that saying something once wasn't enough - unless it was repeated, it wasn't long enough / being taken seriously enough. People had got very fond of it, and were just fiddling with it. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. where is all the relevant, well sourced material that WMC is trying to delete going to go - it doesn't have to go anywhere. Wiki does not, and should not, contain all the relevant and well sourced material in the world. Its an encyclopaedia, not a library William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, this preempts the idea of turning the section into a wider ranging discussion of whether US wartime bombings of "civilians" in general are alleged to be terrorism.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably just as well. This article doesn't need expanding, quite the reverse. Find somewhere else for it; start a new article perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Better to have a debate in one article than two.Ultramarine (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I also strongly object to this mass blanking of the section. This is basically what you did the first time with this article: blanking all the information and claiming its reported elsewhere in the main article. That was then, as it is now, a complete fabrication. The valid information you blanked, which was stable and being worked in by many editors, is NOT found in other articles. Its specifically a discussion about the bombings in regards to them being State Terrorism. I also object you the manner in which you blanked the work of many articles before even discussing them and working with consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I initially supported the idea, but now having read the main article, agree that it is incorrect. It should be policy to add the information to a main article first before deleting it off secondary articles so as not to have this problem arise. It seems like a sly way to POV push. Hooper (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and the main articles should not give such detail to this view as it might be undue weight. Its exactly in ancillary articles such as this one where we can go in depths, presenting the arguments and explaining the concept as it pertains to the atomic bombings. It was doing an excellent job in doing so. Blanking it, esp. in the manner it was done, was shameful, and disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not stable and many problems with material. The current version is neutral. I think this will allow a better article. Hooper, what do you feel should be included in the debate article?Ultramarine (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I personally feel that the sources were proper and sufficient and the wording correct so that something to the effect of the example paragraph I put forth in our discussion above in the earlier Japan break on this page would suffice. I know you do not agree and thats why I said we should wait on a third option. However, now we've moved onto a new plan which involved possibly changing out the entire section. Due to the realization that there is no proper main article, we can not blanket it out. It is simply unacceptable. We all seem to have put forth how we believe it should go, so perhaps asking an admin to swing by, or taking a vote. The section needs to for sure hit on the fact that there is a strong current of thought that the bombs were State Terrorism, give at least a couple examples, and make sure that we at least hit on each example with a counter-point for those who feel it was justified and not state terrorism. So, what if we each put forth a possible example section for it here on this talk page, and then take votes. If voting doesn't work, lets ask an admin team to swing by and assist. That would be the calmest, proper way to go about it. Thoughts?Hooper (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is a main artcle. If something important is missing it can be added. Should preferable not have a similar discussion in two places.Ultramarine (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I personally feel that the sources were proper and sufficient and the wording correct so that something to the effect of the example paragraph I put forth in our discussion above in the earlier Japan break on this page would suffice. I know you do not agree and thats why I said we should wait on a third option. However, now we've moved onto a new plan which involved possibly changing out the entire section. Due to the realization that there is no proper main article, we can not blanket it out. It is simply unacceptable. We all seem to have put forth how we believe it should go, so perhaps asking an admin to swing by, or taking a vote. The section needs to for sure hit on the fact that there is a strong current of thought that the bombs were State Terrorism, give at least a couple examples, and make sure that we at least hit on each example with a counter-point for those who feel it was justified and not state terrorism. So, what if we each put forth a possible example section for it here on this talk page, and then take votes. If voting doesn't work, lets ask an admin team to swing by and assist. That would be the calmest, proper way to go about it. Thoughts?Hooper (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then I want to see it added to the main article, discussed on the main article, and in a state so that it won't be removed or greatly altered before any blanketing happens here. Simple process. We need to give somebody something to link to if that is all we're doing. Hooper (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved the material to the main page.Ultramarine (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then I want to see it added to the main article, discussed on the main article, and in a state so that it won't be removed or greatly altered before any blanketing happens here. Simple process. We need to give somebody something to link to if that is all we're doing. Hooper (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the extent of the stripping, perhaps someone can create a sandbox of a small version, just not a fully stripped one. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ultramarine has created a new section and moved the material there. Can everyone please check that page and see if you are now in agreeance with the edit that WMC suggest of stripping it to a smaller version. I think it is well done now. Maybe we should link the main article to the exact State Terrorism section of the main page? Let me know and I'll get it done. Hooper (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a sandbox (User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2) with the old Japan section in it. Lets work on that to find an agreeable brief paraphrase paragraph or two of how the section should look. Then we can change this section to reflect the new main article section being more in-depth. The main article should be put on watch for a time to make sure the information there doesn't get drastically changed or removed. I am unfortunately heading out the door so another editor should remove the Japan information back to the WMC format at their convience until the sandbox version is ready to go. Hooper (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I put what I felt would be appropriate under the main section. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That keeps many of the old problem discussed earlier, like completely excluding counter-arguments regarding military necessity and justification. Why not have a short NPOV version.Ultramarine (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with adding another paragraph, the bottom one is the same text I added, stating its just war. It does not completely exclude counter-arguments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why not simply remove "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." False to state "in this context" since the given sources do not discuss state terrorism. Covered from both views in the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue that the meeting of the Target Committee on May 10–11 1945[4] rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective and chose a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world." The only source given is a primary document. No source for "most interpretations" and "Supporters". So should be removed as unsourced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with adding another paragraph, the bottom one is the same text I added, stating its just war. It does not completely exclude counter-arguments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That keeps many of the old problem discussed earlier, like completely excluding counter-arguments regarding military necessity and justification. Why not have a short NPOV version.Ultramarine (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I put what I felt would be appropriate under the main section. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I chopped the paragraph out all together hopefully to reach a middle ground. Now the opposing side is pretty close to half, and the section is very concise. Cutting out more I could not see as acceptable, but feel free to create your own version in the sandbox. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I still would prefer WMC's version as a compromise your proposal is better than the current version.Ultramarine (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I chopped the paragraph out all together hopefully to reach a middle ground. Now the opposing side is pretty close to half, and the section is very concise. Cutting out more I could not see as acceptable, but feel free to create your own version in the sandbox. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone has copied the section across to Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki but it looks to be a pre-edited version of the section. So it hasn't just been "moved" it seems to be a selectively edited copy without comment on what changes have been made. I'm not opposed on principle to the idea of the section being in full style in the Debate article and being in WP:SUMMARY style here, however: 1) this shouldn't be taken as an opportunity to change the content of the section in the new article without due explanation, as seems to have been done; 2) this still leaves open the possibility of the section here becoming an "Allegations of war terrorism by the US" section with a wider scope but inclusive of the Japan summary; 3) the form here should be a well-written summary of the full discussion and be one or two paragraphs long as per WP:SUMMARY, not just an orphaned sentence; 4) if the editors of the Debate article reject the section (perhaps because it is seen as bloating that article or poorly suited to its scope), it should be reinstated here as it contains notable well-sourced topics but is not large enough to constitute a whole article by itself. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only obvious changes like material already covered in this article like the discussion on military necessity.Ultramarine (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well done. Bravo. That's a brilliant way to deal with POV problems, reintroduce a section chock full of them. Take a bow. Sceptre (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments are so constructive, I believe with just this statement we can resolve all the issues in the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- UM - given the dissent in this talk page, I'd say nothing is "obvious" to everyone. I, for one, don't agree with all your changes. It would be have more transparent to copy it as-is and then start making changes, rather than putting your personal take on an improvement into the first version of the copy, and it would have cost you nothing. You could have made your changes and they would have been easy for other editors to identify in a diff. It's no big deal, anything that you've removed that should go back in doubtless will be re-entered by interested parties. Just pointing it out so that those interested can do so.---Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can see them here: [2] Material removed already covered elsewhere in this article. Anything specific you disagree with? Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was the current version at the time of your move: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=207979047&oldid=207975529#Japan_.281945.29] That's not the "old" version that you've just given in a comparison. Why didn't you take the current version at the time of the move? I'm happy to comment on your changes, but I disagree on what the baseline was.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again no important differences. I have added your exact text and removed things already mentioned elsewhere in the article: [3] Note that this is by no mean a version without problems. There are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters. But please continue that discussion in the debate article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The main change that stood out for me was the removal of references around the "Target Committee" paragraph. However, I've just finished reading all the references you removed and I now agree with you that they don't support the current wording well. Most of them talk about the lack of military necessity, but don't mention terrorism or deliberate targetting of civilians. Zinn talks about the bombings being terrorism due to the death of innocents, and he references Kai saying that the targets weren't destroyed primarily for military reasons, but doesn't mention the Target Committee. None of them seems to even mention the Target Committee, let alone saying that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective instead choosing a large civilian population. It was discussed previously that Coady may discuss the Target Committee, but I don't have access to Coady, and haven't seen a quote to that effect from Coady here. I can see why some might want the Target Committee link in there, it allows readers to go and read it themselves. But the use of a complex uninterpreted primary source is inappropriate here without a source that interprets it. I gather that previously it said outright that the target committee did target civilians, but that phrasing would be original research so also inappropriate. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to include the Target Committee reference unless a source is uncovered that interprets it. I think the paragraph should be amended to address the arguments made by the secondary sources (e.g. Kai) based on it not being primarily not an attempt to destroy military targets but a "demonstration". --Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- If no one makes these allegations regarding the Target Committee, then the paragraph with these allegations should be removed. Kai's point is already mentioned in another paragraph.Ultramarine (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The main change that stood out for me was the removal of references around the "Target Committee" paragraph. However, I've just finished reading all the references you removed and I now agree with you that they don't support the current wording well. Most of them talk about the lack of military necessity, but don't mention terrorism or deliberate targetting of civilians. Zinn talks about the bombings being terrorism due to the death of innocents, and he references Kai saying that the targets weren't destroyed primarily for military reasons, but doesn't mention the Target Committee. None of them seems to even mention the Target Committee, let alone saying that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective instead choosing a large civilian population. It was discussed previously that Coady may discuss the Target Committee, but I don't have access to Coady, and haven't seen a quote to that effect from Coady here. I can see why some might want the Target Committee link in there, it allows readers to go and read it themselves. But the use of a complex uninterpreted primary source is inappropriate here without a source that interprets it. I gather that previously it said outright that the target committee did target civilians, but that phrasing would be original research so also inappropriate. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to include the Target Committee reference unless a source is uncovered that interprets it. I think the paragraph should be amended to address the arguments made by the secondary sources (e.g. Kai) based on it not being primarily not an attempt to destroy military targets but a "demonstration". --Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again no important differences. I have added your exact text and removed things already mentioned elsewhere in the article: [3] Note that this is by no mean a version without problems. There are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters. But please continue that discussion in the debate article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- This was the current version at the time of your move: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=207979047&oldid=207975529#Japan_.281945.29] That's not the "old" version that you've just given in a comparison. Why didn't you take the current version at the time of the move? I'm happy to comment on your changes, but I disagree on what the baseline was.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can see them here: [2] Material removed already covered elsewhere in this article. Anything specific you disagree with? Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, I agree that your comments here are unhelpful. If you think there is POV problem, please help to work with editors to address it. This is a troubled talk page and sarcastic comments won't help. Specific suggestions with explanations please.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Japan is out. The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Such consensus is manifestly absent here. As an Allied operation, planned and executed by the Allies, including Britain and Canada, who also contributed to the Manhattan Project; and in any case undertaken in time of war against an enemy combatant; this fails any then-current definition of terrorism. Revisionist claims aside, it is far too problematic to be included. A very short sentence to the effect that a tiny number of people have used words like terror or terrorism to describe this, may be appropriate, but per WP:UNDUE (which is policy, part of WP:NPOV) we do not give such enormous prominence to tiny minority views. This was discussed here recently, and the warring parties have chosen to reinsert the text despite manifest lack of consensus, and that is completely unacceptable. I believe we are now getting to the point where some of the regulars here are going to need to be topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your personal view about what is considered State Terrorism is OR, and wrong. Its not what the experts who study and write on the subject are saying. You are also wrong about adding disputed content: that is not what happened here. The material was added many months ago, and is thus long term material, which was added through collaboration among many editors. You don't get to come here and blank it just because you disagree, without some consensus first. You blanked first. Plus, you did so through protection, a clear misuse of your admin tools. I have given you notice about this and am giving you a chance to undo your blanking.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is all about minority views, and consensus is not to get rid of it. I highly disagree with your edit but will not iniate reverts. Please discuss such changes on the talk page of controversal topics before making them. Hooper (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- How do I tell this page is about minority views, it doesn't say it is. Is it about significant minority views? If so, is there a minority view that says bombings were a terrorist act? RxS (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The atomic bombings in Japan should absolutely be in, because the topic of whether it was terrorism is a notable subject in the modern world. Your personal opinion on whether it was terrorism is irrelevant. At least one head of state has said it was terrorism. When Joe Reader hears such a statement in the news and comes to wikipedia to get more information on the argument over whether the atomic bombings could be considered terrorism, there should be coverage of both sides of that discussion for them to read. Otherwise wikipedia is censoring a very real modern debate, pretending it doesn't exist. Please present evidence that the argument of terrorism is a "tiny minority view", and therefore WP:UNDUE. On the contrary, the references given show that a number of respected scholars suggest it was "terrorism", "war terrorism" or "state terrorism". Whether it was described as terrorism at the time of the bombings is irrelevant, what matters is that there are reliable sources stating it now. Your claim of "revisionism" is just personal opinion. Please find a reliable source saying that it's revisionism, and then that can be included in the counter-arguments in the article. Which is precisely what the section needs for NPOV, presentation of all sides of the argument. When I last looked it had two or three counter-arguments, which is pretty good balancing but more would be welcome.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed maintenance tag
{{editprotected}} Article needs to be tagged thus:
Please action ASAP, as the article is a festering pile of dung and needs to be clearly identified as such. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- JzG, please get a grip. The above is not helpful. - auburnpilot talk 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, the article has obvious flaws that people are attempting to come together to resolve, discussions are ongoing and people are attempting to work together, this is divisive and not needed at this time. Considering all of this drama, I want to thank Ultramarine for what I have seen as a willingness work with everyone, and everyone for a more willingness to hear out Ultra who we may have been overly critical of, and to thank those like Bigtimepeace, Ryan, DrGabriel and Hooper who have come from outside to try to help the existing group reach a fair middle ground. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended to be "helpful" it was intended to be a statement of my acute frustration at the abysmal state of this article. What should actuall happen, IMO, is this:
- Reduce to a stub
- Full protection for a minimum of six weeks
- Not one word goes in without robust consensus on talk
- Anybody who is in the tiniest bit disruptive gets topic banned
- Article probation ongoing
- Instant ban for any kind of gaming of the system
- I think that this might finally fix the problems which have existed with this article ever since its creation, through eight AfDs, numerous titles and God alone knows how many bytes of hot air on this talk page. You can't polish a turd, let's just start again. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the first application of this proposed rule, how about topic-banning JzG for being more than a tiny bit disruptive? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might have said that as a half joke, but I think its seriously valid. The problem, of course, is not personal in nature. It's in regard to specific disruptive behavior on an article that needs the very opposite kind of 'cool heads" in order to progress. Many dedicated editors who are serious about fixing the article, have shown to be knowledgeable about the subject, and are working with all view points, and following policies. The problem is we have this "drive by" disruption by a few editors "hot head" editors who do not participate much, do not explain their edits, and do not remain cool. Instead, they just call the article names, try to get it deleted, and espouse their own very narrow POV that evidences their ignorance of the subject matter. Still worse, they ignore the claims of expert sources, and then violate admin tool use to push their pov. If topic bans are needed, it's precisely against these editors who are disrupting progress with these unbecoming antics. Guy fits the description, unfortunately.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like a really bad idea. We need to make the article better not remove editors who are concerned with doing this so the article can be left to t ose with an agenda to push. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- If Guy needs to be removed so do other people that edit this page, probably. John Smith's (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that making the article better is a first priority, however dividing and insulting participants is not helpful and only serves to reinstitute the battleground mentality that has recently been removed. The section just above is a good discussion on the Japan section, instead of participating in a manner that allows everyone to come together, Guy decides to drive a wedge. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The worst part is this attitude that Guy exudes because he is upset, however what about the people who have been trying to work together, who participate in discussions constantly to reach middle grounds? They are upset, they would like to see the article improved as well. Asking Guy to maintain the same level of professionalism that everyone else has been able to, is not asking much, especially when he is an admin. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that making the article better is a first priority, however dividing and insulting participants is not helpful and only serves to reinstitute the battleground mentality that has recently been removed. The section just above is a good discussion on the Japan section, instead of participating in a manner that allows everyone to come together, Guy decides to drive a wedge. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the first application of this proposed rule, how about topic-banning JzG for being more than a tiny bit disruptive? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frustration, huh? WP:THERAPY much? (For my part, I'm just disappointed.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd just like to say that I think they're funny. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Whether they are funny or not is irrelevant (personally I think they lack a certain subtlety). Posting those tags does nothing to help the situation. Guy himself admits that he is not trying to help, rather he is just frustrated and wants to show it. Article talk pages are not the place to show frustration. I don't agree with Guy's proposal above, but if it were to be implemented several things Guy has done in the past couple of days would have led to a topic ban for him. Editing during protection without consensus and placing "may contain uninformed wingnut drivel" tags on talk pages are disruptive actions on a controversial article. The fact that Guy thinks he's right (who doesn't think they are right?) is not some sort of entitlement to behave in this fashion. All of us are either here to collaborate on the article while showing respect for other editors or we are not. If not then you shouldn't be here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- BigT, Guy is hardly the only editor not to show respect for others. In the past a small group decided that they owned the article and that they could form consensus amongst themselves, even if editors more recently arrived disagreed. That was far more problematic. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- So? You're not arguing that two wrongs make a right, are you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- John, you are well within your right to point out that there might be other problematic editors but that does not change anything about JzG's behavior. Incidentally, Guy seems to be the only one here who simply refuses to talk about certain issues. Earlier I posted a lengthy and very polite note about the Japan section on his talk page (I thought a one-on-one conversation away from the article talk page might make discussion easier). He responded not to my comment but with a complaint about the editors here and a call for topic bans. I then asked him if he would reply to my comment about the article and he simply deleted the entire section of his talk page with the edit summary "not interested." I'm not some troll and I was clearly trying to have a discussion about the section of the article JzG removed while the article was protected in the hopes of coming to some consensus. Honestly, how is one to deal with an editor who simply refuses to discuss an issue of contention on an article? When you are involved in disputes John, you are always willing to keep the discussion going until the issues are resolved which is great. Guy is proposing radical changes to the article but rebuffs attempts to discuss the issues at hand. Again, I really don't know what to do about that and I really don't see anyone else here behaving that way right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had not noticed this comment from Guy on his talk page. If he's too fed up with the article to work on it then obviously he's under no obligation to discuss anything.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- John, you are well within your right to point out that there might be other problematic editors but that does not change anything about JzG's behavior. Incidentally, Guy seems to be the only one here who simply refuses to talk about certain issues. Earlier I posted a lengthy and very polite note about the Japan section on his talk page (I thought a one-on-one conversation away from the article talk page might make discussion easier). He responded not to my comment but with a complaint about the editors here and a call for topic bans. I then asked him if he would reply to my comment about the article and he simply deleted the entire section of his talk page with the edit summary "not interested." I'm not some troll and I was clearly trying to have a discussion about the section of the article JzG removed while the article was protected in the hopes of coming to some consensus. Honestly, how is one to deal with an editor who simply refuses to discuss an issue of contention on an article? When you are involved in disputes John, you are always willing to keep the discussion going until the issues are resolved which is great. Guy is proposing radical changes to the article but rebuffs attempts to discuss the issues at hand. Again, I really don't know what to do about that and I really don't see anyone else here behaving that way right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- So? You're not arguing that two wrongs make a right, are you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- BigT, Guy is hardly the only editor not to show respect for others. In the past a small group decided that they owned the article and that they could form consensus amongst themselves, even if editors more recently arrived disagreed. That was far more problematic. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Whether they are funny or not is irrelevant (personally I think they lack a certain subtlety). Posting those tags does nothing to help the situation. Guy himself admits that he is not trying to help, rather he is just frustrated and wants to show it. Article talk pages are not the place to show frustration. I don't agree with Guy's proposal above, but if it were to be implemented several things Guy has done in the past couple of days would have led to a topic ban for him. Editing during protection without consensus and placing "may contain uninformed wingnut drivel" tags on talk pages are disruptive actions on a controversial article. The fact that Guy thinks he's right (who doesn't think they are right?) is not some sort of entitlement to behave in this fashion. All of us are either here to collaborate on the article while showing respect for other editors or we are not. If not then you shouldn't be here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for taking time out of your busy days to have a go at me, but actually I think you'll find that I am not one of the long-standing POV-pushers on this article, I'm more of a newcomer and WP:NPOV-pusher. The article is so close to irredeemable as makes no difference, and I'm not the one driving any kind of wedge, the warring parties don't need any wedges driven, they drew up battle lines long ago. I have made a concrete proposal which, taken with other proposals below, stands some chance of fixing this horrible article: stub, rebuild with only discussion of who describes certain things as state terrorism, with the WP:UNDUE filter that it must be more than one or two obvious zealots, and discuss the details of the individual operations in their separate articles, so this does not act as an agglomerated set of POV-forks. Sure, the people who want it to be vehemently anti-US are pretty happy right now, because they've been a numerical majority for a little while and that has resulted in their POV being the most represented, but that does not make them right any more than the pro-US POV pushers are right. I'd almost include this with waterboarding as a litmus test for POV edits. I'm pleased that my POV is so very easy to discern, though, since I've now been attacked as a pro-US government shill and an anti-US bigot. Perhaps it's just that, as one coming in from outside, I have merely articulated something which the fans of this article have missed despite several pertinent comments in past AfDs that identify the problems very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome to stay to provide your input, working with the other editors to help develop the article. Or you can ignore the article and let other editors work through some complex negotiations to achieve consensus. However, you are not welcome to misuse your admin tools or to insult other parties at this page. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy's proposal
I'd suggest that that's a reasonably well-thought out idea. If someone is willing to do the grunt work to make sure that some of the deleted material, if sourced, is reproduced in the (more?) appropriate "main" articles, we can stubify this and begin the process of rebuilding. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree the main articles should have mention of this POV but not given undue weight. Instead they should point to the larger article that is able to get into depth regarding the allegations of state terrorism. In other words the main articles simply say that "this also has been termed as state terrorism by critics,...etc" and it points here for the larger discussion and detailed exposition of this viewpoint--not the other way around. However, if there are new articles created for each one of these sections, then yes, it should be smaller here and larger there, as then the new article becomes the "daughter" article that give is much more space (a whole article), whereas this article only gives it a section.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The idea of stubbing and rebuilding is a poor one for two reasons. 1) The content of this article is largely well-sourced and relevant to the topic. It presents multiple sides of the discussion, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Its problems are that it's too wordy and that it could do with even more opposing views, but those are matters for refining through editing, not a do-over. 2) The real difficulties with this page are on the edit page, where editors with opposing views are often trying hard to work together but are stymied by frequent reversions and self-proclaimed "bold" edits deleting swathes of well-referenced and relevant material. It's very hard to make constructive edits to a section that is flashing in and out of existence, everyone focuses on the existence drama and useful editing goes by the wayside. Reducing to a stub is the same thing writ large. When I first started looking at this page I thought it needed an informed admin to re-write it and lock down for minimal editing. Now I've seen what the wikipedia admins interested in this article actually do to it (mostly deleting large sections of well-referenced material instead of knuckling down to the hard work of proper editing), I'm inclined to think it would be far better off without any of their disruptive involvement, which has caused pages of angry discussion here while not helping the content of the article in the slightest.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is a lot of good information in the article and I think moving that to other articles and stubbing this one would be a great idea because the information has historical value but it being US state terrorism is problematic in the extreme. We can give a few quotes from Chomsky and others and leave it at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the sections may be better covered in full elsewhere, and in summary form here. That's something that can be considered section-by-section on individual merit. But that's not the same thing as stubbing the whole article. The subject of this article (roughly "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the US") was upheld in the recent AfD as a notable subject appropriate to have an article for. I don't recall any policy suggesting permanently stubbing an article on a notable subject just because it's contraversial as you're suggesting, and I think "temporarily" stubbing it is a bad idea for reasons above.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Ultra was working to move some material to related articles in "state terrorism" section. I am not sure how far he got, I do know he moved the Japan stuff so I cut down the section in the sandbox. You can see it here User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 (bottom) In general I would support moving the information then reducing the sections here that are larger then 4 paragraphs down to 3-4. An introductory paragraph, an allegations, and a justification, perhaps 30% or so each. The only section this may not be appropriate for is Cuba since it covers so many different operations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- So much of the article describes not alleged state terrorism but details about the events that are regarded as alleged state terrorism, and this material does not belong here. We do not, to use the first example need to know all about Operation Mongoose, we need one or 2 lines that sources impeccably these alleged terrorism claims and link tot he article. We do not need to reproduce the whole affair. And its the same for all the other examples that I can see. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why I shortened the Japan section and recommend a 1 paragraph lead, 1 paragraph justification for the action, if one is present, and a 1 or two paragraph of allegations. The idea of stubifying the article is a pipe dream and something that would clearly not reach a consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well lets see if we can reduce the unnecessary details (anything outside the remit of the title) and then a stub proposal will not be necessary. I am particularly happy to work with the Latin American material. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why I shortened the Japan section and recommend a 1 paragraph lead, 1 paragraph justification for the action, if one is present, and a 1 or two paragraph of allegations. The idea of stubifying the article is a pipe dream and something that would clearly not reach a consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I Write Stuff, I think your summary version of the Japan section at User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 looks pretty good. However, there is likely to be a tussle over whether mention of the "civilian target" argument should be covered. Giovanni thinks its an integral argument, and Ultramarine thinks its not supported by the sources. Without input from those interested parties it will be hard to get it to stick, regardless of its quality. Perhaps we could all discuss this on the talk page for your sandbox and try to reach a consensus summary version? We could also put up summaries of what each of the sources actually say (the most important thing, but often overlooked here in the heat of debate), which would inform where they are best used. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ultra already agreed to it above. I think it makes a nice concise middle ground. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- So much of the article describes not alleged state terrorism but details about the events that are regarded as alleged state terrorism, and this material does not belong here. We do not, to use the first example need to know all about Operation Mongoose, we need one or 2 lines that sources impeccably these alleged terrorism claims and link tot he article. We do not need to reproduce the whole affair. And its the same for all the other examples that I can see. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Ultra was working to move some material to related articles in "state terrorism" section. I am not sure how far he got, I do know he moved the Japan stuff so I cut down the section in the sandbox. You can see it here User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 (bottom) In general I would support moving the information then reducing the sections here that are larger then 4 paragraphs down to 3-4. An introductory paragraph, an allegations, and a justification, perhaps 30% or so each. The only section this may not be appropriate for is Cuba since it covers so many different operations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the sections may be better covered in full elsewhere, and in summary form here. That's something that can be considered section-by-section on individual merit. But that's not the same thing as stubbing the whole article. The subject of this article (roughly "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the US") was upheld in the recent AfD as a notable subject appropriate to have an article for. I don't recall any policy suggesting permanently stubbing an article on a notable subject just because it's contraversial as you're suggesting, and I think "temporarily" stubbing it is a bad idea for reasons above.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is a lot of good information in the article and I think moving that to other articles and stubbing this one would be a great idea because the information has historical value but it being US state terrorism is problematic in the extreme. We can give a few quotes from Chomsky and others and leave it at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how much my vote counts but I think the Japan section as it was is good. It is one of the more interesting things I've read and caused me to think. Yes, the targeting of civilians part of the argument is central so that should not be taken out. But if it is not sourced we should find good sources.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am also totally against the idea of stubbing the article, even temporarily. Lets continue working on one section at a time. But no trimming down to summary sections, unless there is a main article that includes all the content to be removed, or will be made to include all the content. In other words, no lost content. And the summary sections, if appropriate to summarize, need to fairly represent the different viewpoints. For example, the Japan section has to represent the reliably sourced and notable viewpoint that the bombings were acts of state terrorism, despite that fact that there was a war, and despite the fact that many Americans feel differently, since the targets were civilian. That is an intrinsic part of the definition and so it's central to the section. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This idea of stubbing is no more valid than the failed Afd attempt. Its just an extension of it by other means. However, any specific problems can and should be corrected. Those critics are urged to engage with the actual material and subject, and provide specific issues that need correction. Unfortunately, I've not seen a willingness by such to be specific or helpful in this way. I have tried to engage editors in a discussion of the material but they have not been interested. for example, see:[4] So I think we should just dismiss them as not serious about improving this article until they show otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, you want to polish the turd. Sorry, I disagree. The article is full of bloat, crap, POV, historical revisionism and in some cases abject violations of WP:NPOV. It is one of the worst articles we have, in my view, and always has been, see--sawing between different biases. As noted above, we go into much too much detail about some of the individual elements, giving an extremely strong impression of novel synthesis. What might be supportable is a short list of things that are widely considered state terrorism, a list of things that a very few sources (mainly Chomsky) describe as such, and a brief discussion of "war terrorism", a revisionist term but one which has some currency as part of just war theory. If we don't approach it on that basis, this article will revert to being a collection of POV-forks of the main articles on the individual operations, which is what it is now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. This is a great article that is an important part of a scholarly literature within a subject that has been growing. Your lack of appreciation for it, I suspect, stems for your not being familiar with it. Have you read any books on the subject? And, no, it's not just Chomsky (although he was an early pioneer in the field). In any case, in order for you to be helpful, I request that you please drop vague and sweeping generalizations. Instead, please provide specific examples of alleged NPOV or SYN problems so that they can be looked at, and corrected. What I find interesting is that those who make these claims are always unable to support those claims with specifics. Either that or they have a flawed understanding of policy, as shown by the failed Afd. The arguments arguing for deletion seem to repeat some of these flaws. But we can determine the basis of your objections if you drop the irrelevant names calling (unless this is an article about "Turds"--its not), and engage the actual material in an intelligent manner.
- You mention historical revisionism. Why is that a problem? Historical revisionism are legitimate parts of scholarship: revisions of previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. Are you saying that this is not allowed here? Keep in mind 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. So I'm not sure what your point is (unless your arguing that it's advancing a claim that is of the other illegitimate variety? If so would challenge you to support those claims with both showing us the specific instance of this in the article and providing a valid sources that informs and supports your designation, because I am familiar enough with the material to know that if you argue this, you are wrong. Since WP is not censored, and these are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field--we do give them a full voice here. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter. A short "list of things" will simply not due. We have articles for lists, but this article presents the discussion of the subject. So its much more than a list. And, its a false dilemma logical fallacy to say that it has to be either or: short list or crap.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No ad hominem please. Factual arguments and avoid discussion of persons please. Regarding the Japan section there are certainly many problems as discussed elsewhere here. For example, no mention of the opposing views regarding military necessity or moral justification presented in the main article. So I have to agree that it is currently a POV-fork although there are proposals aimed at improving it. Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has to be on topic of state terrorism. The section is not a pro/con about dropping the bombs. There is a whole article where that is covered. I never make ad hominem arguments either.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The given sources for the claims of military necessity or moral justification does not accuse the US of state terrorism. So a double standard to include these sources and arguments when not including opposing views on military necessity or moral justification. Clearly a POV-fork only having views from one side.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is another dead horse argument. It was settled that not everything needs to say "state terrorism," for it to be included. It must be in context and logical to the arguments of state terrorism, and supported by sources, even if indirectly. That is the standard. Making arguments about saving lives, etc. are off topic to this articles subject, unless there is some novel argument that says that if an act of terrorism involves saving lives then its really not terrorism? I don't think such a thing exists as terrorism deals with method, a tactic. For you to try to force other arguments causes it to either be off topic or OR, in this context.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not settled. WP:OR and WP:SYN applies. Clearly a double standard to argue that sources and arguments not mentioning state terrorism should be included while excluding sources supporting the US for not mentioning state terrorism. Although the version now protected do include some such sources. Another problem is that there are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters.Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is another dead horse argument. It was settled that not everything needs to say "state terrorism," for it to be included. It must be in context and logical to the arguments of state terrorism, and supported by sources, even if indirectly. That is the standard. Making arguments about saving lives, etc. are off topic to this articles subject, unless there is some novel argument that says that if an act of terrorism involves saving lives then its really not terrorism? I don't think such a thing exists as terrorism deals with method, a tactic. For you to try to force other arguments causes it to either be off topic or OR, in this context.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The given sources for the claims of military necessity or moral justification does not accuse the US of state terrorism. So a double standard to include these sources and arguments when not including opposing views on military necessity or moral justification. Clearly a POV-fork only having views from one side.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has to be on topic of state terrorism. The section is not a pro/con about dropping the bombs. There is a whole article where that is covered. I never make ad hominem arguments either.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- No ad hominem please. Factual arguments and avoid discussion of persons please. Regarding the Japan section there are certainly many problems as discussed elsewhere here. For example, no mention of the opposing views regarding military necessity or moral justification presented in the main article. So I have to agree that it is currently a POV-fork although there are proposals aimed at improving it. Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I find interesting is that idea that in an article that is suppose to contain Synthesis issues, we are being asked to rename all instances of "state terrorism" to "war terrorism." --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, you want to polish the turd. Sorry, I disagree. The article is full of bloat, crap, POV, historical revisionism and in some cases abject violations of WP:NPOV. It is one of the worst articles we have, in my view, and always has been, see--sawing between different biases. As noted above, we go into much too much detail about some of the individual elements, giving an extremely strong impression of novel synthesis. What might be supportable is a short list of things that are widely considered state terrorism, a list of things that a very few sources (mainly Chomsky) describe as such, and a brief discussion of "war terrorism", a revisionist term but one which has some currency as part of just war theory. If we don't approach it on that basis, this article will revert to being a collection of POV-forks of the main articles on the individual operations, which is what it is now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned in a previous section I now agree with Ultramarine's assertion that there are no sources in the Japan section whose arguments are explicitly based on the Target Committee meeting. We can't mention the Target Committee unless such a "interpreting" source is identified (and if it's not available online we'll need a quote provided to demonstrate it really does mention the Target Committee). However, I don't think any of the Japan discussion above relates to Guy's proposal. The Japan section can be balancing with more sourced counter-arguments, tidied to only include sourced material, and made more concise. All business-as-usual editing. Stubbing the article because some sections need that sort of basic wiki editing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The "historical revisionism" argument is one that should be included in the text if it can be sourced, and the "I don't think it was terrorism" argument is irrelevant. It's valid to describe contemporary academic and political dispute, which is what this article currently does. All it needs is standard wikipedia editing to balance it, ensure appropriate references are used (we would all benefit from close examination of the sources and admitting that some, like the Target Committee, are currently inappropriate), and make it more readable. -Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Already removed the info regarding the targeting committee in the sandbox version linked to above, bottom portion is my recommended version which Ultra has agreed to. Let me know what you think. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I think the version at the bottom of User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 is an okay summary. If we carried on with moving the Japan section to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I'd be happy for this summary to replace the Japan section here and then be refined with time. The main refinement that seems necessary is that it's still a list of statements, it doesn't summarise the arguments at all. Two other issues that could perhaps be dealt with now: 1) I added the "total war" arguments that the targets were not civilian and were military. However, the summary does not argue that bombings civilians is a core argument for it being terrorism (it just implies it in one quote), and doesn't argue they weren't military. So these counter-arguments now seems orphaned, it's not clear what they are countering. If we could re-introduce the "civilian target" and "non-military target" arguments then these counter-arguments would be appropriate again. 2) I'm confused by the statement 'Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention. He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."' So it's quoting Coady, and Coady says "Coady instances..."? Is he talking about himself in the third person, or is that last sentence supposed to be an editorial statement outside the quote?Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ultramarine, to clarify, the above users are correct in their statement that sources need to be proper and in context, but they don't necissarilly have to mention state terrorism, as long as it is in context. This goes for you as well, no one is stopping you from adding links to sources that are in context and do not mention ST, but make sure that they are in fact in context, regardless of who is adding the links. Hooper (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Operation Ajax?
I'm surprised there is no mention of the CIA operated overthrow of the democratic government in Iran: "1953 Iranian coup d'état" --Stor stark7 Speak 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well we need references that state that this is allegedly an act of state terrorism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was almost positive that there was a source at one point, an ex-CIA officials, or perhaps someone on the talk page was mentioning it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I give up, I gave it 10 minutes. I hope someone with better sources and stamina than me can find something directly connecting "state terrorism" with the operation, if such source indeed does exist. I wonder what it would be called if it was Iran that had done the same to the US? Never mind, we probably need another article though, "U.S. meddling in other states internal affairs" or similar. This is the only source I could google on short notice. I have no idea about its reliability, with my luck its just a mirror of an earlier version of the Wiki article. Nevertheless it lists Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury as U.S. state terrorism. It also lists tha Nicaragua intervention in the 1980, and something called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, although I see that that one is already mentioned. Food for further source searches perhaps, but not by me....--Stor stark7 Speak 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's probably a mirror cite of an old wiki-article, in any case it's certainly not a reliable source. I'm not sure we've ever had a source alleging that the overthrow of Mossadegh was state terrorism. It's been widely condemned, but it was a pretty straightforward coup e'etat (albeit with a lot of complex elements to it - it was not simply a case of US manipulation). Also to an extent the UK was more the driving external force behind the coup, even though the CIA had a major hand in it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I give up, I gave it 10 minutes. I hope someone with better sources and stamina than me can find something directly connecting "state terrorism" with the operation, if such source indeed does exist. I wonder what it would be called if it was Iran that had done the same to the US? Never mind, we probably need another article though, "U.S. meddling in other states internal affairs" or similar. This is the only source I could google on short notice. I have no idea about its reliability, with my luck its just a mirror of an earlier version of the Wiki article. Nevertheless it lists Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury as U.S. state terrorism. It also lists tha Nicaragua intervention in the 1980, and something called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, although I see that that one is already mentioned. Food for further source searches perhaps, but not by me....--Stor stark7 Speak 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was almost positive that there was a source at one point, an ex-CIA officials, or perhaps someone on the talk page was mentioning it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was curious and looked up to see what I could find on Operation Ajax in the following reliable source: "Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination through Fear" a Book by William D. Perdue; Praeger, 1989. The author is was the Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and the Director of the Contemporary World Studies program at Eastern Washington University. I present the material here for evaluation, and include additional material that might be considered beyond the scope of this article but to provide for context; I'm referring to some of the economic analysis. Here is a chapter on Ajex (excerpts) that implicates the US in the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadeq, and describes its resulting in an "Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."
"In what has been a recurring theme in the centers of Western power through this century, the Eisenhower administration feared the loss of Iran to Soviet influence, and its C.I.A. became a key-player in the British proposed operation “Ajax” (Roosevelt, 1979). C.I.A. agents assisted in the orchestration of “pro-shah” riots (Copeland, 1969:51)...The Mossadeq government fell on August 19, and the shah returned three days later courtesy of “an American operation from beginning to end (Tully, 1962:96).”...West and its shah went busily about creating the precipitating conditions that could only resurrect the dormant forces of theocratic reaction in the years to come. Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."
In the decade following Mossadeq's ouster, the shah moved internally to suppress the Tudeh party and the National Front (Ramazani, 1975:326). One crucial event was the formation in 1957 of the National Security and Information Organization, the acronym for which from the Farsi language is SAVAK. SAVAK was created with the aid of the U.S. C.I.A. and F.B.I, and the Israeli Mossad (Abrahamian, 1982:419)... SAVAK was to become a hated and feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition from the left or right."
It was, however, the new imperial ties with the United States that implicated a superpower in the excesses of the court and the economic violence visited on the poor (Pesaran, 1985:15-50)....By means of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and the Law for the Attraction and Protection of Foreign Investment in Iran (1955), Western (and particularly, U.S.) hegemony was assured. Foreign investors were offered guarantees against losses owing to nationalization, and between 1950 and 1970, U.S. military and economic aid to Iran amounted to some 2.3 billion dollars.
Under U.S. tutelage, Iran was absorbed into a Western model of development marked by several distinctive properties. A preference for a few large-scale projects (ranging from factories to the construction of dams and intercity transportation) disguised economic fragmentation and the continued neglect of the agricultural sector. Iran devalued its currency, increased its money supply and lent huge sums to the private sector. The resulting “boom” coexisted with inflation and deficits, leading to International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) “stabi-lization” in 1960 with its standard austerity measures: control of private sector credit, import-controls, cuts in government services and higher interest rates. A Western-style White Revolution (a clear historical reference to anti-Red forces in the Russian Revolution), called for...privatization of state industries. These in concert with I.M.F. austerity measures...
However, massive growth in Iranian oil revenues proved only to fund its splendid dependency. At the international level, in the classic sense of “boom-erang capitalism, ” the shah used petrodollars to support Western export industries, including vast expenditures on modern armaments. In 1977 alone, Iran purchased arms worth 2.3 billion, out of a total 6.5 billion exported by the United States (United States Bureau of Census, 1979:367). Military sales from the U.S. alone for the five-year period 1973 to 1977 amounted to 15.2 billion (Halliday, 1979:95). The “development” of Iran was in keeping with the shah's commitment to convert Iran into a “Great Civilization” and the world's fifth-ranking power. Internally, the inequality of dependency relations was reproduced with wealth concentrated by class and in the cities.
The United States offered to meet the shah's obsession for sophisticated military hardware, technicians, and advisers. The shah in turn agreed to use the armed force of his state to defend Western interests in the Persian Gulf. This political alliance revealed more concretely the real power behind the Peacock Throne. But the relationship born in splendor was to end in ironic ruin.
...The hated shah was on the soil of the nation whose C.I.A. had engineered his return to power in 1953, and that had presided over the international construction of its modern dependency. It was in this context that students loyal to Khomeini took the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, and provided the Imam with one tool to seize control of a potentially authentic revolution."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- US involvement in the coup can certainly be criticized. But the question is if it was state terrorism. If, admittedly arbitrarily, using one of the many definitions of terrorism which sees it as violence against civilians with the purpose of influencing the government, then a coup is not state terrorism. It changes the government directly. A separate question is if US support of the Shah makes action done by his security agencies US state terrorism. That is dubious also according to this definition of terrorism. Again, civilians were not attacked in order to influence government policy. Again, the US could be criticized for this support but not for it being US state terrorism. If criticizing the US, we should also point out the good things the Shah did, like the White revolution, and the US would seem to able to claim credit for this.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Logical, however, I think it passes in this context since it the regime is describes as perpetrating terror, targeting its own civilians (political parties, etc). The source calls it, in fact, the "Iranian Regime of Terror: 1953-79." Specifically the SAVAK as the "feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition..." And, it implicates the US in supporting and bringing the regime to power. So I think we have all the logical elements there to include it. Its just a question of how and to what degree. Also, we should have multiple sources, as well. Also, I disagree taht this should be about good vs. bad "things" the US did. This is not about making judgments are trying to balance good things vs bad things. That would be too much off topic (better left in the other article that talks about the reforms). Here we are only interested in a certain aspect of the coup and its repurcusions, as they pertain to allegations of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I do agree with your logic the important thing is that we can include it if we have reliable sources, and if we do not have reliable sources we cannot include it. personally I want to work seriously on the article when it gets unprotected so we stick to the point (talking about alleged terrorist allegations) and don't use the article to talk about the details opf any alleged terrorism. So if Chomsky says it was terrorism we dont spend 2 paragraphs talking aboputt he operation, we say that Chomsky thinks it is terrorism for "x" reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what we're coming to agreement on, that we need to be concise in the amount of background information given aside from the allegations themselves. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Background material should be used only so as to intelligently discuss the allegations, and provide relevant and direct context to them. The question is: does it help to explain the nature of the "state terrorism" in question? But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!). Where to draw the line is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, do we have source accusing the US of state terrorism? A source accusing Iran of terror does not mean that this is US state terrorism. If providing background info, we must also include such on good things that the regime did like the White revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is not quite the correct standard. Yes, it includes direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism, of course, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this article's scope also includes allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror. That is what the sources above do. Also, reforms initiated that has nothing to do with state terror are off topic, in my view. They will bloat the article/section, and are best left for their own article. This is not about balancing pro/anti US, as this article is not about pro/anti US govt. policies. Its not a debate. It is a presentation of the relevant literature on allegations of State Terrorism in which the US is significantly involved.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please quote the "direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism". No, the article is not titled "allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror." That the US supported Iran does not make the US responsible for everything done by Iran. I see no allegations that coup involved terror although the Shah's regime later is accused of this. Also, is use of "terror" the same as terrorism? No, the definitions are more complex. If we include general background material, then we must do so in a NPOV way. If we include material about the Shah not accusing the US of state terrorism but criticizing him generally, then we must also include opposing view like the White revolution. Also, background material must be brief and summarized. There are other articles discussing the Shah's regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is beating a dead horse again, also its a logical fallacy to claim that allegations of significant US complicity in State Terrorism means "the US is responsible for everything done by Iran." That is a straw man. No one is making that claim. But we have reliable sources implicating the US in State terrorism by funding, supporting, financing, training, harboring, etc. actions that reliable sources say are state terrorism. Therefore we can report on that. This standard has long ago been settled on so I don't see a need to rehash it, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly no such settlement. Please give the quotes I asked. To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- ... or a source accusing the US of funding or otherwise supporting state terrorism. But yeah, for the purposes of this article, sources accusing the Shah of terrorism are not useful. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. The source accuses that US of funding or otherwise supporting a state "regime of terror.' As Ultra knows there is not one agreed definition which is why we must rely on reliable sources instead of picking and choosing which qualifies per our own definition (that would indeed be OR).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- See what I wrote. Since you ignored it I will repeat it "To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary."Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't ignore your points, I answered and refuted them. 1. Straw man fallacy, and 2. definition issue is OR, on your part. Read above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Straw man fallacy"? Why? Are you arguing that the US is responsible for everything done in nations they have supported? Like the Soviet Union during WWII? Regarding "terror", it is you who are doing OR when arguing that it is a synonym of "terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't ignore your points, I answered and refuted them. 1. Straw man fallacy, and 2. definition issue is OR, on your part. Read above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd read "state terrorism" into "regime of terror". There's enough solidly referenced material here; we don't need to include stuff that's admitted by interpreting and arguably stretching the source's words: That would just reflect poorly on the rest of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thats certainly a reasonable and valid counter argument, unlike the straw man fallacies by Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- What fallacies? You have not answered my questionsUltramarine (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have twice. No need to keep repeating this on the talk page when everyone can clearly see it. It becomes a distraction. If want, you can drop me a message on my talk page and I can explain it there (many times).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who reads the discussion will see you have not answered my arguments. The place to discuss article issues is here.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Using exactly your arguments I could cite sources accusing Stalin of terror during the WWII. As well as the extremely large military and economical aid to the Soviet Union. Synthesizing this I would then create a section accusing the US of state terrorism in the Soviet Union.Ultramarine (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have twice. No need to keep repeating this on the talk page when everyone can clearly see it. It becomes a distraction. If want, you can drop me a message on my talk page and I can explain it there (many times).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- What fallacies? You have not answered my questionsUltramarine (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thats certainly a reasonable and valid counter argument, unlike the straw man fallacies by Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- See what I wrote. Since you ignored it I will repeat it "To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary."Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. The source accuses that US of funding or otherwise supporting a state "regime of terror.' As Ultra knows there is not one agreed definition which is why we must rely on reliable sources instead of picking and choosing which qualifies per our own definition (that would indeed be OR).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- ... or a source accusing the US of funding or otherwise supporting state terrorism. But yeah, for the purposes of this article, sources accusing the Shah of terrorism are not useful. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly no such settlement. Please give the quotes I asked. To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is beating a dead horse again, also its a logical fallacy to claim that allegations of significant US complicity in State Terrorism means "the US is responsible for everything done by Iran." That is a straw man. No one is making that claim. But we have reliable sources implicating the US in State terrorism by funding, supporting, financing, training, harboring, etc. actions that reliable sources say are state terrorism. Therefore we can report on that. This standard has long ago been settled on so I don't see a need to rehash it, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please quote the "direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism". No, the article is not titled "allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror." That the US supported Iran does not make the US responsible for everything done by Iran. I see no allegations that coup involved terror although the Shah's regime later is accused of this. Also, is use of "terror" the same as terrorism? No, the definitions are more complex. If we include general background material, then we must do so in a NPOV way. If we include material about the Shah not accusing the US of state terrorism but criticizing him generally, then we must also include opposing view like the White revolution. Also, background material must be brief and summarized. There are other articles discussing the Shah's regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is not quite the correct standard. Yes, it includes direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism, of course, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this article's scope also includes allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror. That is what the sources above do. Also, reforms initiated that has nothing to do with state terror are off topic, in my view. They will bloat the article/section, and are best left for their own article. This is not about balancing pro/anti US, as this article is not about pro/anti US govt. policies. Its not a debate. It is a presentation of the relevant literature on allegations of State Terrorism in which the US is significantly involved.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, do we have source accusing the US of state terrorism? A source accusing Iran of terror does not mean that this is US state terrorism. If providing background info, we must also include such on good things that the regime did like the White revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Background material should be used only so as to intelligently discuss the allegations, and provide relevant and direct context to them. The question is: does it help to explain the nature of the "state terrorism" in question? But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!). Where to draw the line is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what we're coming to agreement on, that we need to be concise in the amount of background information given aside from the allegations themselves. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if there are good sources that assign a significant portion of the blame on the US, i.e. that argue the US desired that outcome and supported it through various means to help to bring it out. So if we have sources that argue and connect any instances of State terror with arguments of US culpability, then yes, we could include that. However, unlike the CIA sponsored coup Operation Ajax, I doubt you have any sources that make the claims you're making. I agree with Sidhekin, though, that currently, its called "terror regime" which may not exactly be state terrorism. So that is a valid argument (unlike yours), and therefore we should look at more sources to get a better picture to see if this qualifies as an instance of state terrorism. But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about. Terror by proxy, though clients states, certainly counts, and in fact forms most of the allegations within this article. And no more straw man arguments, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- "But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about." Again, this is not a general US criticism article but one about state terrorism. Again, do you have a source stating that Iran was US state terrorism? Then quote it please. Regarding possible "straw mans" none of my two arguments was that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually when you when you argue, "US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime," you are making a straw man argument because one one is claiming that the US is responsible for "everything."76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Giovanni, you really need to stop this thing you do where you say "X source says that US act Y was bad and reprehensible, so therefore it's state terrorism and should be in the article". That's OR and SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think Giovanni is saying that. At least that is not what I got. The issue seems to be that the source describes it a terror regime. Is that the same as state terrorism? That seems to be the only issue here. "Bad and reprehensible" = "state terrorism" would be OR. But "terror regime"="state terrorism" is much closer.76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Terror is not necessarily terrorism. See above. Nor is the US responsible for everything done in nations supported. Again, please give a source making the accusation of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is starting to seem like a silly wikilawyering argument. "terror regime" does not have to be equal to state terrorism, however it may. If its being called a terror regime because they committed terrorism against civilians for political purposes, then its state terrorism, however there are many reasons it could have been labeled a terror regime. Again context is obviously the driving factor. I do not think this is really a case of OR or SYNTH unless the "terror regime" is not due to the regime, ie the state, committing terrorism against the civilian population. If everyone would just stop and think, instead of slinging alphabets, perhaps this page would be less hostile. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. A Terror Regime described in this context in a book called "Terrorism and the State" in which it describes a the terror regime from 53 to 79, is describing and referring to that government. As such we are talking about the State here. I think its valid. But, we should use the authors term, "terror regime" instead of state terrorism (distinction without a difference?) unless we have other sources. In any case, I'll look for additional sources when I have some time in the next few days. I agree we need to drop the wiklawyering here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is starting to seem like a silly wikilawyering argument. "terror regime" does not have to be equal to state terrorism, however it may. If its being called a terror regime because they committed terrorism against civilians for political purposes, then its state terrorism, however there are many reasons it could have been labeled a terror regime. Again context is obviously the driving factor. I do not think this is really a case of OR or SYNTH unless the "terror regime" is not due to the regime, ie the state, committing terrorism against the civilian population. If everyone would just stop and think, instead of slinging alphabets, perhaps this page would be less hostile. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Terror is not necessarily terrorism. See above. Nor is the US responsible for everything done in nations supported. Again, please give a source making the accusation of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think Giovanni is saying that. At least that is not what I got. The issue seems to be that the source describes it a terror regime. Is that the same as state terrorism? That seems to be the only issue here. "Bad and reprehensible" = "state terrorism" would be OR. But "terror regime"="state terrorism" is much closer.76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is all bizarre. Overthrowing a govt, democratically elected or otherwise, isn't (state) terrorism, except by a defn so wide as to render the term meaningless. Discussion belongs under US foreign policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that depend on the means to do it? You do realize most "terrorists" are attempting to over throw governments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Terrorism is a means; overthrowing a govermnent is an end. But I still don't think "terror regime"="state terrorism" is going to hold up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is another straw man. No one is claiming that overthrowing a govt is state terrorism. However, the there is nothing bizarre about the claim that this coup involved state terrorism as its quite common place both in maintaining power and establishing it through violent means. This does not mean that its the same as a coup, but a coup attempt can certainly employ state terrorism. The key to grasp is that its the method, the tactics, that is the of import here. And if we have reliable sources that make the claim about this particular conflict as employing state terrorism, that is all we need to worry about. Applying our own definitions and understanding to what is or is not state terrorism, what is too broad or too narrow, is an excercise in futility.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No, overthrowing a govt isn't state terrorism just as war isn't state terrorism. War, or coups, supercede terrorism. No wonder this article is such a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually war, coup, and other forms of conflict with violence or threatened violence frequently employ the tactic and of terrorism, esp. among state actors. This is according to various reliable sources. These are apples and oranges: goals and tactics should not be confused.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure where this logic stems from. Its like saying there are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan since both are war zones. So when "a person" blows up a dump truck in a school killing children, it was clearly an act of war. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- In empirical political science "war" is usually defined as at least 1000 battle deaths involving armed combatants. Attacks against armed persons are usually not seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that classify September 11th as an act of war, not an act of terrorism? Armed combatants are not civilians, so attacks against them would not fall under war by your definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The civilians killed in 9/11 were not armed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that classify September 11th as an act of war, not an act of terrorism? Armed combatants are not civilians, so attacks against them would not fall under war by your definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- In empirical political science "war" is usually defined as at least 1000 battle deaths involving armed combatants. Attacks against armed persons are usually not seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Allegation" and "terrorism" together as part of a title
You'll pardon me for not sprinkling in all the WP:WIKIACRONYMS and taking a simplistic view here... I'm sorry, but I thought "allegation" was a word to avoid as it indicates lack of neutrality. Anyone can allege something. That rather marks this entire article as a coatrack, does it not, especially as it was renamed to include "Allegations" in the title to more appropriately describe the contents. (My use of coatrack is not completely precise, but I believe my meaning is clear.) Given the even greater sensitivity around the use of the word "terrorists" and "terrorism," that's now even further afield from anything purporting to be neutral. Exactly how does this title reflect an editorial discipline worthy of an objective encyclopedia? —PētersV (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can see some of the questions you raised addressed in the previous AfD, including the coatrack claim. [5] --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well we certainly are not going to call the article State terrorism by the United States as there is nothing in this article that isn't alleged. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:WTA does not include "allegations" and a WP:COATRACK is an article that seems to be about one thing but is actually about another. This seems to be about allegations of US state terrorism and it is, so there is no coat on the rack.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not all "terrorism" articles use the word "alleged". For example, one can "Islamic terrorism" or "Christian terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We could ofcourse rename the article to "Undeniable facts of state terrorism by the United States", but I guess some editors would oppose that. // Liftarn (talk)
- Yes, but not for the reasons you think. It would involve reducing the article to a stub and removing all content :) Jtrainor (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Time for a rename to Allegations of state terrorism?
Funny we don't have an article on Alleged state terrorism by the United Kingdom, Alleged state terrorism by Iran etc. I propose we change the name of the article to Allegations of state terrorism, this would avoid the POV issues of solely talking about alleged state terrorism by one country when there are and have been accusations against many countries from South Africa (apartheid era), Spain, Iraq (Saddam era) and a very long et al. This would solve many issues, what say folk. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would be a different article. In fact there is one that has a list of countries under state sponsored terrorism. See: [6]Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- See Special:PrefixIndex/Allegations of state terrorism, including Allegations of state terrorism by Iran. Okay, some are just redirects, but this is not the only article there; would you propose to merge them? I'd vote no: This article more than long enough and more than touchy enough as it is. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is too much material here specifically covering allegations of state terrorism committed by the US for it to be merged into a parent article about allegations of state terrorism in general. There are no POV issues in talking about allegations that a specific country uses state terrorism, so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented). If there is sufficient sourced material to warrant an "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United Kingdom" article then it should be created. It is natural for subjects with large quantities of data to have these kinds of content forks.Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rather continuing my point from above, on so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented), a section titled "Opposing Views" referencing a term (democide) not even in a dictionary and stating the U.S. might not be considered to be as evil as the Khmer Rouge (as an example) is hardly "balance."
- It would appear that instead of having a bunch of events under a title stating they are alleged to be terrorism they should be described as what they are, subversive activities--and the article have a section titled "Allegations of state sponsored terrorism." THAT would be "NPOV". By taking real events with real consequences and lumping them under a title with "allegations" substantially diminishes their significance and does a disservice to nations and peoples impacted. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think "Opposing views" should be used when the view is opposed, and "Justifications" should be used when the issue has been rationalized. For example, Hiroshima, is often not opposed, simply justified by the possible dead if they did not bomb, so a justification section may be more appropriate. Perhaps "Alternate view" --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt there are many alternative views, but the problem is that its off topic to this article, and will just repeat these other debates found in other articles. To any alternative or opposing view should really be about the topic, i.e. arguments logically connected with those that claims/arguments of state terror. NPOV does not mean, "include any argument to make the US look good" to create an artificial balance and pretend that they are opposed, let alone related, to the arguments that this article deals with. And that is the problem with most of Ultramarine's wish list additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- As much as we are asking Ultra, and those who oppose even the topic, to see past the strict semantics, it is historically obvious that the US has argued that Hiroshima was necessary. The response to accusations has always been the death toll. The US usually does not oppose a view, just present what it feels were its justifications. I think not including these is unwittingly supressing the other PoV which we need to be careful of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt there are many alternative views, but the problem is that its off topic to this article, and will just repeat these other debates found in other articles. To any alternative or opposing view should really be about the topic, i.e. arguments logically connected with those that claims/arguments of state terror. NPOV does not mean, "include any argument to make the US look good" to create an artificial balance and pretend that they are opposed, let alone related, to the arguments that this article deals with. And that is the problem with most of Ultramarine's wish list additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- PētersV - I think I follow your meaning that discussing world events under a title that includes the word "allegations" might imply that whether these events occurred is in question. I don't agree though. The article includes the atomic bombings, which no-one disputes happened. The "allegations" term concerns whether the events were terrorism, not whether they happened (although in some cases how or whether the US was involved is also disputed). I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt that they will understand the distinction. This article reports on the notable cultural phenonema of allegations that the US has committed terrorism (sometimes including a sub-phenonema of allegations that the frequent use of "terrorism" allegations by the US is hypocritical). The article describes this phenomena, the reasoning given by those making the allegations, and the counter-reasoning of those who disagree. The counter-arguments are discussed section-by-section in order to provide a neutral point of view. That's necessary, because each sub-allegation is different and has been responded to differently. There is already an article about US foreign policy that includes more general criticisms, without using the word "allegations" (except about whether US torture behind closed doors is happening, which seems an appropriate usage). Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think "Opposing views" should be used when the view is opposed, and "Justifications" should be used when the issue has been rationalized. For example, Hiroshima, is often not opposed, simply justified by the possible dead if they did not bomb, so a justification section may be more appropriate. Perhaps "Alternate view" --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- For my part, I believe that a lot of folks here have had their priorities backwards. I have always maintained that the body of an article is not an entity that attempts to elaborate whatever is implied by the title so much as the function of the title is to attempt to encapsulate the subject of the article. The title should not assume such significance that it is employed to mechanically delimit the subject matter of the article. Rather, it is the task of explicating a notable discourse that should have priority. The title should simply reflect the essence of that discourse.
This article for me has always been – at least in large part- about explaining a notable social discourse that is advanced by numerous reliable sources about the subject of U.S. state terrorism. Accordingly, the discourse encompasses far more than just allegations. Various themes are explored: including the U.S. role in the construction and maintenance of the institutions of state terrorism, ie: death squads, and para-statal counter-terror networks; the role of the arms trade; discussion of international conceptions and definitions of terrorism and the role of the hegemonic power in establishing these norms; themes concerning the relations and alliances that are established between groups in the hegemonic power and ruling groups in the periphery; analysis of possible motivations such as economic interests (including the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil), or the role of anti-communist ideology; the U.S. role in the evolution of state terrorist methods and technology; a critique of mainstream discourses about terrorism; discussion of coercive diplomacy as a form of state terrorism, discussion of impunity and redress for victims of state terrorism; and discussion of possible effective means of resistance against state terrorism, ie: through the vitalization of international humanitarian law, and greater democratic control of the U.S. executive and those agencies involved in formulating and executing foreign policy, (to name several themes, but not all of them).
The title that consists of “Allegations…” is far too narrow to convey the richness of this discourse, and greatly facilitates highly politicized initiatives (invariably by those unfamiliar with the literature) to suppress anything but the most minimal and truncated expression of this richness by insisting on an artificially literal and narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy.
To reiterate, I think that one of the primary tasks of the article is to try to explain this social discourse with clarity, accuracy, and a neutral point of view. The purpose of the title is to try to encapsulate the essence of this social discourse. It may very well be that a social discourse is too complex to encapsulate in a single, succinct catch-phrase. It then to seems to me to fall upon the lead paragraph to clarify the subject of the article. After some thinking, the best title that I can come up with is: “The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism” . It has the advantage of implying that it is not established fact but rather a dynamic public discussion, hence subject to further interventions and evolution. It may not be the “golden title” that captures everything important about the article in a single catch-phrase. Nevertheless, perhaps it is possible to convey whatever essential points that it misses in the lead paragraph(s) of the article?BernardL (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Allegations should be in the title for reasons previously stated. Also, this is not a general US criticism article. Not an article about "arms trade" or "the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil". Definitions of terrorism and state terrorism are discussed in the main articles about these topics.Ultramarine (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Chile
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)
The Philippines
The Philippines section[7] 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 [8] 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[9], 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.[10],[11]Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A more correct Google search gives 25,000 hits for "E. San Juan, Jr.".[12] 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[9], 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.[10],[11]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 [[13]] 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: [[14]] , [[15]], [[16]] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. [[17]] 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." [[18]]. 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 [[19]] and Amnesty International [[20]] 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)
Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
It seems like the most prominent allegation today is the Revrend Wright's. According to abc news: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11: "In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation." Not to joggle elbows if you have something going, but that might be something the article ought to mention. Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably lacks credentials as a credible subject matter expert on this material, but it is a widely distributed accusation. Thanks! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- He is notable and I have no objection to including these rather truthful allegations. I vote for inclusion. Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion that the allegations are truthful is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Becomes an interesting problem, while easy to source, he is not an expert in the field, nor representative of any human rights group etc. Do you have a proposed text Tom? --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rather points out the whole problem with "Allegations of BAD THING X by Y" articles. We have children in Pakistan taught to recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand being taught the U.S. did the 9/11 attack itself to discredit the Muslim world. Do we include that allegation too? I'm sure we can find a "notable" cleric espousing that view as well. There's no boundary between fact and polemic here. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, this is not an article for "bad things." That is a red-herring that I wish people would stop making. This article is only for notable allegations of State Terrorism--and that is exactly what it is. If it were all 'bad things" we would have a an article a million times the size of this one.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Rather points out the whole problem with "Allegations of BAD THING X by Y" articles. We have children in Pakistan taught to recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand being taught the U.S. did the 9/11 attack itself to discredit the Muslim world. Do we include that allegation too? I'm sure we can find a "notable" cleric espousing that view as well. There's no boundary between fact and polemic here. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- And so I ask, is this supposed to be a list of fact or fiction? Or we don't care? —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Factual, as are Rev. Writes claims. There is nothing fictional here. However, WP standards is verifiability, not "truth." That is policy I believe.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Wikipedia specifically discusses how articles are not suppose to be "truth" but verifiable. However, I see where you are going and think we can at least draw the line at reputable critic, someone with at least a publishing history in the field, or at least a critical examination. I can accept a world leaders voice, but Wright really is not notable unto himself with his Obama link. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, Wright is notable only for his Obama link, not for any scholarly endeavor of his own making. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! Jtrainor (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scholarly endeavors as the criterion for inclusion is wrong; notability may be enough for inclusion in this type of article. The standards for historical/scientific articles are different than one about a political opinion article, such as this one. Note that we have President Chavez, who does not have scholarly endeavors, either. But we report his views. The standards in this article include both one of notability and one of high academic quality (the latter is better). Heads of state are automatically very notable. Rev. Writes, may not reach that level of notability, even though his views have been all over the mainstream media. Perhaps if he kept speaking out and became known for these views more so than his link with Obama, then he might be ok for inclusion. I'm ok either way. However, his views should be in his own article where we can put in a wiki-link to this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! Jtrainor (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly, Wright is notable only for his Obama link, not for any scholarly endeavor of his own making. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- And so I ask, is this supposed to be a list of fact or fiction? Or we don't care? —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)
- ^ Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)