":::::*The way the USA defines what is and what is not a terrorist act is important to the article in it's own right.  This is not an article on terrorism. It's an article on state terrorist acts committed by the United States. However, I see now that your definition wouldn't even belong in state terrorism for that matter, as someone else recently pointed out, because it doesn't even mention state terrorism. If there was a U.S. statute that had a definition of state terrorism, I would welcome mention of it in state terrorism, however. Regardless, I don't care about your definition. That's not what this discussion is about. If I was worried about your definition, I would not have needed to file an RFC, because every single experienced editor agreed that it was not worthy of inclusion. Your definition simply wasn't going to stay whether I filed an RFC or not. But I filed an RFC because I think the entire section needs to go. I'm trying to remove all of the definitions, the large majority of which I agree with, because a definitions section simply does not belong in this article at all. It belongs in state terrorism. So please stop obsessing over your definition, which nobody cares about and has clearly told you will not be included here, and try to focus on what this RFC is about  i.e. whether or not we include a definitions section at all. 
 :::::*It is critical because it shows that there by the terms set forth by a lawfully and democratically elected, representative government the US legal code does not define ""terrorism"" the same way as the commentators who you are arguing for inclusion would.  Again, this is an article on state terrorism not terrorism in general. But more importantly, this still shows me that you haven't read WP:RS as I've recommended to you several times. Please point me to where in WP:RS there is something about ""lawfully and democratically elected, representative governments"". 
 You attributed beliefs to me that I do not hold, a misrepresentation.   Which ones? Are you really trying to deny that you weren't pushing to remove content based on the contents of the Definitions section? You've clearly stated this as the case, and are only denying it now that you've been backed into a corner, and instead are denying that you said it and claiming that I am ""misrepresenting your statements"". Please explain this diff and tell me how it doesn't show either misunderstanding of both WP:V and WP:SYNTH (and WP:DISRUPTIVE for that matter). But now let's get to some concrete examples of misrepresentations: 
 :::::* Since you are essentially arguing for this definition to be excluded on the grounds of how it may be used rather then on it's own merits for encyclopedic inclusion  Please point me to where I argued this. 
 :::::* Otherwise you look like you are pre-emptively trying to censor something because don't like the way it might potentially effect the articles narrative.  Wrong, and a poor attempt at mind reading. 
 :::::*So far you and yours have not allowed one comma to be changed.  False. In fact, I've contributed significantly more than you to the article, and the only thing I prevented was your deletion of all of the content in the article, and your original research from primary sources. 
 :::::*Including the Governments definition of terrorism in an article on government terrorism is not ""synth"".  Nor did I ever say it was. I said that what you said you were doing (and are now denying)  i.e. removing content because it didn't (in your opinion) meet the government's definition of terrorism (not even the government's definition of state terrorism, which is the topic of this article, for that metter) was in violation of WP:SYNTH, as was your mistaken belief that the definition section would have any bearing on the content included in the rest of the article. 
 :::::*What, SPECIFICALLY was not ""verifiable"" about the citation?  I never said anything wasn't verifiable in the citation you gave. Myself and Fifelfoo pointed out to you that it was in violation of WP:PRIMARY. I cited WP:V to counter your belief that what the definition section says would have any bearing on inclusion into the article. 

 *Delete - Replace with wikilink, optionally with the contents of the lead of State Terrorism. The article is already tagged for length and there is no reason to rehash a discussion of definitions, which our article on the matter indicates is unsettled. We are of course free to mention that the US officially rejects the label and the reason why, but this does indeed