Talk:Shock and awe/Archive 1

message: I think the article should mention that in the case of shock and awe as a psychological effect, it is different from blitzkreig. In blitzkreig, only the enemy is witness to the campaign. In shock and awe, viewers from around the world watched on live TV, and are thus from their respective vantage points subject to psychological effects. I, for one, was both "shocked" and "awed" and I'm of the opinion that the psychological effects were additionally directed at American citizens and other countries, and not just Iraqis.
As a sidenote, I also remember watching CNN at the time which was showing the bombing campaign and at the same time in the ticker at the bottom displaying Iraqi propaganda such as (and I'm paraphrasing) "Saddam Hussein believes in humanity and just law" and "Iraq wishes for peace" which made for a very dissociating juxtaposition.
--Ben 20:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological Effects 

message: Larnue the dormouse has been confirmed by a CheckUserUser as a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark.  However, after reviewing the banned user's modus operandi, I stand by my recent edits, which do point out that "shock" and "awe" are both dictionary synonyms for "terror."
I fully understand that was probably Zephram/Larnue's intended response, but it is a fact, and I have repeatedly verified it through the years, and my experience researching depleted uranium convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is notable, for the reasons stated in my edit of the intro and the Criticism section. --James S. 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larnue the dormouse; synonyms of "terror" 

message: This struck me when I couldn't find anything better than the euphemism Collateral damage to link from "indiscriminate civilian casualties" (in common with terrorism):
:casualty ... etymology: Middle English casuelte, from Old French, from Medieval Latin cāsuālitās, chance, accident, from Latin cāsuālis, fortuitous. See casual.
How close is that to the root of Zephram's problem?  --James S. 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of term "casualties" 

message: As someone who was "illicited" to edits here by a sockpuppet of the banned user Zephram Stark, I wonder what my responsbilities are.  It is hard to determine the motivations of the offender when his edits are being reverted/blanked.  Too hard.  If anyone expects me to make an honest judgement about whether the banned user's behavior was so out of line that I should be retracting, eliding, moving to talk, contracting, softening, or otherwise modifying my edits here, I'm going to need the facts in front of me.  As it stands, I know this talk page doesn't represent the whole story.
This wouldn't be that hard if I could figure out whether there is any difference other than connotation between unconventional warfare and military doctrine, which it seems there isn't:  one is "accepted" by one set of authorities, and the other is accepted by a different but substantially overlapping set of authorities.  That's the very essence of a point-of-view difference.  
I must say, I was angry at Zephram for this ruse, but now I'm not so sure I have any disagreement with his motivation -- only his methods. --James S. 06:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we be blanking or marking banned user sockpuppetry? 

message: ...and "shock and Awe" should redirect to "rapid dominance."  "Shock and awe" is simply a discriptor for the doctrine.ER MD 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not attempt to "move" articles by copying-and-pasting: it makes the edit history hard to follow.  I have rolled both back to the way they were before; please redo your subsequent edits here.  If you wish to have the article moved, file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Haeleth Talk 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock and Awe needs to be changed to "Rapid Dominance" 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose for now. If S&A is a subcategory it doesn't become clear in the text. Reading the text it appears that the terms are used synonymously, with S&A as the more commonly known term. It's also not clear that S&A was only used in the context of Iraq 2003. If this is clarified in the text I might change my vote, but not as the facts are presented. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated: The original document is clearly titled Shock and Awe -- Achieving Rapid Dominance. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move survey

message: the inclusion here is more of a critique on the iraq war and not on the military operation.  Its a very thin video and it is political.  The article has been cleaned of the policitical stuff and this is one more political insertion.  If the video was on the meaning of shock and awe or on the initial operation, then it would be more valid, but its on the regular crap like oil, american imperialism etc.  I'll add a political component to see if you agree with the insertion... ER MD 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bro, have you seen the entire clip? Yes, the first half is just as you describr, but its due to the second half that i included it. --Striver 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  youtube 

message: ED MD (formerly ER MD) is the only one who has been deleting the "Criticism" section, which he has been doing repeatedly while undoing other editors' work over the past half year. The situation has devolved into a one-sided edit war, with some editors such as myself adjusting text and including additional references to address ED MD's concerns, and ED MD reverting wholesale, sometimes without any discussion on this talk page. Should this article include a "Criticism" section with other points of view than the military strategists he has cited, and include the summary information in the intro?  
For reference: 
*most recent version without Criticism, from ED MD,
*most recent version with Criticism, from Starcare and other editors,
*new version with Criticism from ED MD created after survey opened
--Starcare 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Here are some more mainstream sources which should probably be incorporated:
Trivedi, B. (Feb. 14, 2005) "Inside Shock and Awe" National Geographic Channel story at nationalgeographic.com accessed July 26, 2006.  Interesting quotes:
:"As a military tactic, shock and awe has been tried before during the last century—though it has rarely succeeded."
:"Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."
::(included in article. Starcare 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[T]he press are loyal. And it’s terrific because for a long time the split between the press and the military was artificial and dangerous. I do an awful lot of television, and I haven’t heard of any reporter who’s let them down."
That quote in-and-of itself explains why a balanced point of view may only be possible with out-of-the-mainstream news sources. Starcare 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Geographic article is a good source.  The problem is that you spliced sentences together. The text reads:
"As a military tactic, shock and awe has been tried before during the last century—though it has rarely succeeded. In World War I the Germans used zeppelins to cross the English Channel and drop bombs on Britain, convinced the English would be stunned into submission. In World War II Hitler's air force inflicted a 57-day bombing campaign—the Blitz-on Londoners who once again refused to surrender. The Japanese also survived and resisted prolonged air attacks—until the atomic bombs were dropped. Hiroshima and Nagasaki created both shock and awe."
The last paragraph reads:
"Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."
Taking the first sentence from the first paragraph and adding it to the sencond sentence in the last paragraph distorts the context. But including the whole second paragraph makes sense and does not distort a point of view. I already included it into the article. ED MD 20:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More mainstream sources 

message: My initial points about this article have not been addressed.  The maistream references do not claim what is included in the article.  Will file with an admin. ED MD 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific.  Which inclusions do you claim are not supported by the references?  As above, it should be easy to find several other references, often mainstream, saying the same thing. Your points were addressed, above, and your subsequent complaints were met with several additional references. If you really think anyone other than you believes that removing all the critisism results in a neutral point of view, I am cetain that any admin will tell you to take your issues to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.  Admins aren't supposed to decide content disputes. Starcare 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the references that you site do not support the inclusions 

message: I see that ED MD was unsatisfied with the fact that he was losing the survey, and so decided to go and solicit additional responses from friends, which distorts the responses.
I'm going to replace the controversial sections, asking one thing:
If you disagree with a portion, please find an opposing source and add it in a "However...." statement,  instead of simply reverting.
Thank you. Starcare 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starcare, write a response to the above criticism of the article.  Did you know the the The Guardian reference [17] does not use any of the following phrases:  "indiscriminate," "doomsday," or "terror aerial bombardment" and yet it is referenced!?!?!?!? I guess facts don't matter to you. Your survey was full of crap, as your question distorted my positon.  Read the responses to your insertion attempts, and why don;t you try to answer the POV questions above. ED MD 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the questions where you said you approved of the National Geographic reference, but didn't include it, and deleted it three times today? I stopped answering after I realized that.  Please play fair. Starcare 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons to terrorism and indiscriminate civilian deaths are Original Research and clearly don't belong in the section.  WP:NOR WP:RS and WP:POV--Scribner 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey response solicitation 

message: There does seem to be some room for criticism of shock and awe, but it should avoid political matters and focus on military efficacy.  This is, after all, an article about a military strategy, so it seems logical to constrain discussion to the merits/problems of that strategy, and not the political implications or aftermath of its appliation.  It seems far more appropriate to discuss the origins of this concept, its application to the Iraq War, and the opinions of scholars of military strategy on well it worked.  Expanding commentary to the broader political debate over the Iraq War and its legality/moraliy are frankly belong the scope of this article, and I'm sure are quite adequately addressed by the article(s) on the war.
On specific issues that keep recurring:
1)Many of the objections to the current page stem from an effort to expand the content of this page beyond a strictly encyclopedic definition of "Shock and Awe" to something of a broader commentary on the Iraq War.  The key is that while statements may be technically true, their inclusion suggests connections that express an obvious POV.  See Meta: Positive tone for what I'm talking about.  For example, references to terrorism (as synonyms to "shock" and "awe" or as sharing characteristics of "shock and awe") are clearly biased statements.  A connection between terrorism and "shock and awe" is not an issue that I have ever seen raised in the mainstream media.  So comments about terrorism may be technically correct, but referencing them in the same article creates an unusual parallel expressing obvious bias.  Civil disobedience and terrorism share characteristics (both are used to resist government authority), but the civil disobedience article never references terrorism.  Ditto with references to depleted uranium and the 1991 Gulf War, which predate the formulation of the "Shock and Awe" strategy by 7 years.
2) Many of the editorial comments referenced by Starcare are from outlets that do not appear to be mainstream news sources.  If their views had been echoed by a a single widely known news source, or a source that was academic or apolitical, it would be different.  However, all referenced sites appear avowedly "activist" liberal or progressive sites, and all seem to be a part of a debate that's removed from the mainstream.  To say the editorial opinions of apparently fringe sites represent a part of a serious, widespread debate strains credibility.--Auric04 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said Auric, This is a tough article since so many people want to push a POV. Nobody seems to be interested in writting about the tactic, only writting about its implementation in Iraq, which by all accounts from military stategists was nowhere near a shock and awe campaign.  I actually find that aspect funny.  Seems to me that language is more important than reality. ED MD 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations from a Passing Observer

message: In my opinion, the popular culture sections are just a bunch of loose associations. I have come across very few that were interesting and/or informative.  In this article who cares if somebody tried to patent a golf club and call it shock and awe? Or some vague country song?  I think that most of these sections do not belong.  I would ask this question in terms of relevence:  would a print version of the encyclopedia have these meaningless associations listed? ED MD 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the policy on these "popular culture" sections? 

message: Mixing propaganda with leftist or pov claims is a policy violation.  Stop the propaganda crusade.--Scribner 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the current inclusions are balance from Ullman and Wade themselves, and mainstream sources (except, arguably, for Counterpunch, which is easy to replace from mainstream sources for its quote, as ED MD noted above.) However, I think it is appropriate to add at least one left-wing news source since so much of this article depends on National Defense University publication which is perhaps even further from the mainstream view. Starcare 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you're adding the propaganda in the opening paragraph, not in the section regarding the Iraq invasion.  Second, the material is uncited and is original research.  The material is not just pov, it's propaganda.--Scribner 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, not a single claim is uncited. All but one are from fully mainstream sources. Moreover, if you look at the #Survey above, you will see that everyone except ED MD had voted for including such information in the intro (not the "opening paragraph" as you incorrectly state, by the way) until ED MD started soliciting survey responses from the likes of you. Starcare 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What does my religioun have to do with anything in this article? I feel offended. Further, i was active in this article way before Starcare came here (to my knoweledge). --Striver 11:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So?  Anyway, Scribner, do you realize you now have the unsourced tag on the article without any of the inclusions you've been objecting to, which implies that you think some other portion than my inclusions are unsourced? Starcare 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's policy.  The tag remains for a reasonable amount of time, 48 hours in your case before I delete your material and remove the tag.  It's a good faith effort to give you time to cite your contributions.  WP:RS--Scribner 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of my contributions are you claiming are not supported by the cited sources? Starcare 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among others -- "To those in the US, such perceptions may be incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." You cite this as fact when in the source it is obviously editorializing. This is a disingenous use of the reference. Your cititations to the dictionary definitions of shock and awe are obviously intended to make a point that, equally obviously, was not intended by the writers of the dictionary. As such this is an original synthesis (original research), aside from being really stupid. And of course, you use these sources to make the ridiculously broad and patently unsupportable claim that to those in the Arab world shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To take another example, "Terrorism and shock and awe share in common the use of indiscriminate civilian deaths; for example, the March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than ever before." This doesn't even make sense -- before what? -- but let's assume that it did. The second part is simply not an "example" of the first. The fact that civilians died doesn't indicate that shock and awe employs indiscriminate civilian deaths, and indeed one source notes that the campaign may have been too discriminate to achieve its effect. If you want to claim that shock and awe used indiscriminate civilian deaths, find a source that attests to U.S. failure to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should read the source; the part which says "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11. To the homespun folks in Middletown, California - recorded by the BBC the other day singing patriotic songs around their dinner table - such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." might be particularly enlightening. The fact that the dictionary and thesarus both show that "terror" is a synonym is a fact, a fully sourced fact.  It might seem "really stupid" to you, but that is your problem, and as a sourced fact it stays in the article. As for your other example, again, you need to read the source which states, "It's the first time an attack in Baghdad has killed so many civilians."  Your objections are completely without merit. Starcare 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is an editorial comment. In the encyclopedia format, it is a needless comment that is intended to drive home a specific fact. To be fair, we should just state the facts and let the reader assess the information. A fair claim that you can make based on this topic would read as follows: "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name." This is the factual content that the article presents.Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we know why the Guardian author wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible". Starcare 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what you just wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible."  No way, pal.--Scribner 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, by the way, exactly the phrasing you deleted five times. Publicola 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HEADS UP, I didn't delete anything, I requested a cite five times.--Scribner 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's not, however the article can include the fact that one writer for the Guardian thinks it is. It could also include the opinions of journalists who disagree, feel free to add such. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an "editorial comment," it is a news report describing real Arabs and real Middletown, Californians, and their real definitional disconnect which your groundless objections illustrate almost as well. However, I will support your "by another name" phrasing when I can next edit. Starcare 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely obviously an editorial comment, in the same way that if I were to write, "George Bush is President. Yeah, it's really true, he is," the first part would be the factual content and the second would be the editorial comment. If you decide to revert the article, please make clear what "before" refers to. As I said, it will still be a non-sequitur; the example provided doesn't demonstrate that indiscrimiante civilian casualties occured. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the reference for the "indiscriminate" statement says, "People travelling in their cars had been incinerated.... An eyewitness said, 'Two rockets, one on this side, one on that side. There's no military base here. There are no weapons or soldiers here. They are all civilians. Men, women and children, going along the road. I saw it with my own eyes.' A restaurant frequented by workers in the area was hit.... Two days ago, a house on the street we are on was hit.... If daytime air raids continue, it's inevitable that more civilians will lose their lives and fewer will see the Americans and British as their liberators." If that isn't the epitome of indiscriminate, then what is? Starcare 06:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper article needs to say "indiscriminate" and it needs to be a whole sentence, not the typical take out of context reference from Starcare.  The fact of the matter is shock and awe used much more precision guided weapons.  "Indiscriminate" would be something like carpet bombing. I think Starcare is Striver, a guy who only does references to Islam (scrubs references to terrorism on those pages, and then comes out to claim that the US is the terrorist nation) and tries to promote anti-semitism.  Starcare has only edited on Shock and Awe probably so as not to get his Striver user name in trouble. ED MD 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever floats your boat.--Scribner 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcare, cite all claims 

message: Starcare has returned with a paragraph in the introduction and a section in the Iraqi section.  What I've done is to tag the whole article unsourced (for this reason), and add this HTML code at the beginning of the unsourced sections and at the end of the sections.  The code hides the sections--Starcare is aware of this.
We've got some Islamic contributors  with whom User:Starcare is communicating regarding this article, FYI.--Scribner 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does my religioun have to do with anything in this article? I feel offended. Further, i was active in this article way before Starcare came here (to my knoweledge). --Striver 11:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So?  Anyway, Scribner, do you realize you now have the unsourced tag on the article without any of the inclusions you've been objecting to, which implies that you think some other portion than my inclusions are unsourced? Starcare 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's policy.  The tag remains for a reasonable amount of time, 48 hours in your case before I delete your material and remove the tag.  It's a good faith effort to give you time to cite your contributions.  WP:RS--Scribner 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of my contributions are you claiming are not supported by the cited sources? Starcare 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among others -- "To those in the US, such perceptions may be incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." You cite this as fact when in the source it is obviously editorializing. This is a disingenous use of the reference. Your cititations to the dictionary definitions of shock and awe are obviously intended to make a point that, equally obviously, was not intended by the writers of the dictionary. As such this is an original synthesis (original research), aside from being really stupid. And of course, you use these sources to make the ridiculously broad and patently unsupportable claim that to those in the Arab world shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To take another example, "Terrorism and shock and awe share in common the use of indiscriminate civilian deaths; for example, the March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than ever before." This doesn't even make sense -- before what? -- but let's assume that it did. The second part is simply not an "example" of the first. The fact that civilians died doesn't indicate that shock and awe employs indiscriminate civilian deaths, and indeed one source notes that the campaign may have been too discriminate to achieve its effect. If you want to claim that shock and awe used indiscriminate civilian deaths, find a source that attests to U.S. failure to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should read the source; the part which says "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11. To the homespun folks in Middletown, California - recorded by the BBC the other day singing patriotic songs around their dinner table - such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." might be particularly enlightening. The fact that the dictionary and thesarus both show that "terror" is a synonym is a fact, a fully sourced fact.  It might seem "really stupid" to you, but that is your problem, and as a sourced fact it stays in the article. As for your other example, again, you need to read the source which states, "It's the first time an attack in Baghdad has killed so many civilians."  Your objections are completely without merit. Starcare 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is an editorial comment. In the encyclopedia format, it is a needless comment that is intended to drive home a specific fact. To be fair, we should just state the facts and let the reader assess the information. A fair claim that you can make based on this topic would read as follows: "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name." This is the factual content that the article presents.Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we know why the Guardian author wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible". Starcare 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what you just wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible."  No way, pal.--Scribner 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, by the way, exactly the phrasing you deleted five times. Publicola 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HEADS UP, I didn't delete anything, I requested a cite five times.--Scribner 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's not, however the article can include the fact that one writer for the Guardian thinks it is. It could also include the opinions of journalists who disagree, feel free to add such. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an "editorial comment," it is a news report describing real Arabs and real Middletown, Californians, and their real definitional disconnect which your groundless objections illustrate almost as well. However, I will support your "by another name" phrasing when I can next edit. Starcare 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely obviously an editorial comment, in the same way that if I were to write, "George Bush is President. Yeah, it's really true, he is," the first part would be the factual content and the second would be the editorial comment. If you decide to revert the article, please make clear what "before" refers to. As I said, it will still be a non-sequitur; the example provided doesn't demonstrate that indiscrimiante civilian casualties occured. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the reference for the "indiscriminate" statement says, "People travelling in their cars had been incinerated.... An eyewitness said, 'Two rockets, one on this side, one on that side. There's no military base here. There are no weapons or soldiers here. They are all civilians. Men, women and children, going along the road. I saw it with my own eyes.' A restaurant frequented by workers in the area was hit.... Two days ago, a house on the street we are on was hit.... If daytime air raids continue, it's inevitable that more civilians will lose their lives and fewer will see the Americans and British as their liberators." If that isn't the epitome of indiscriminate, then what is? Starcare 06:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper article needs to say "indiscriminate" and it needs to be a whole sentence, not the typical take out of context reference from Starcare.  The fact of the matter is shock and awe used much more precision guided weapons.  "Indiscriminate" would be something like carpet bombing. I think Starcare is Striver, a guy who only does references to Islam (scrubs references to terrorism on those pages, and then comes out to claim that the US is the terrorist nation) and tries to promote anti-semitism.  Starcare has only edited on Shock and Awe probably so as not to get his Striver user name in trouble. ED MD 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever floats your boat.--Scribner 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: The problem here is that, according to the #Survey above, people believe that the article is unbalanced and should include criticism.  However, ED MD and Scribner have been deleting or commenting out any such inclusions. Here is an example of the problematic edits -- that one is a commenting with the inclusion of a tag suggesting some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but there are plenty of similar reverts (including those responsible for two blocks of ED MD for 3RR violations in the past week) in the article's edit history. (A note on the Survey:  ED MD initially tried to blank,  load, and stack the survey, and then when he was shown to be the only respondent holding his point of view, he resorted to soliciting responses from his friends.)  The people involved are those responding to the survey and editing (and reverting) the article.  I hope mediation can accomplish a compromise version acceptable to all parties. Starcare 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation request

message: This is one section I require comment on: < !--To civilian victims, the Arab world, and others world-wide, shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Ullman and Wade claim that the ability to frighten, scare, and intimidate is a fundamental part of the doctrine. Shock and awe has resulted in high numbers of indiscriminate civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure. The words "shock" and "awe" are both synonymous with "terror."-- >
It's still there, never left the article, but I require a cite. I gave you 48 hours to provide a cite. Find your cite or the contribution disappears.--Scribner 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert confusion 

message: Do NOT remove the critical video, it blatantly violates NPOV to remove one view. --Striver 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: The last in talk had multiple points of contention to which have not been addressed.  Why don;t you try to address these concerns are reach a consensus versus reverts with ridiculous statements that will never pass the test of time. ED MD 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Auric's objections aren't applicable to the version I've been supporting.  Furthermore, you just agreed to a mediation statement which assumes the existence (if not the exact wording) of the sections which you have been blanking.  Perhaps you should edit instead of blanking. Starcare 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  counter arguments sadly lacking 

message: Hello,
I have been watching this conversation over the past few days and, although I have been tempted to jump in and state an opinion, I think that the nature of the dispute is such that formal mediation is necessary, and the best thing I can do is to encourage that. Please sign and agree to the Request for mediation as soon as possible. Thank you. KWH 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All six parties specified have agreed to mediation. Publicola 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We still need Striver, but it's actually very good that almost everyone signed in the first day... KWH 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In 24 hours I will replace the deleted dispute tags, NOR and CITE, barring evidence that the article does not violate these policies, which is unlikely.  Since an attempt to resolve this was made and failed, I believe this is reasonable and is policy.</U>--Scribner 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: An Award
		Barnstar awarded by Striver to Scribner, Publicola and Starcare for defending NPOV on the Shock and Awe article, when some people wanted to remove all critisism from the article.
This was placed on my user page at 11:48, 3 August 2006 as a passive/aggressive swipe at ED MD, since he was slighted.  But I'll keep it here to remind Striver, Publicola and Starcare that my edits are npov.  The op/ed sections of the article are coming out.  Cite it correctly, or loose it.--Scribner 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is this: can people  write something on wikipedia that lasts for a long time.  Because in a few months when the "block is lifted somebody will just removed the POV. In the case of Shock and Awe, writing that it means terrorism because the definitions contain "terror" as one of its many descriptors is absolutely retarded. Intellect at that level does not extend past the sixth grade. Just like my fantastic analysis where I prove that shock and awe really means "jarring stupefaction." On a more broader front, inclusion of extremist views such as those presented by Stiver (I already sited his anti-american and anti-semitic edits) and by inclusions of extremist webpages like World Socialist Webpage makes for a really poor page. Maybe we should include the opinion of the KKK in the article as well? (that was sarcasm if you didn't figure it out, as I'm sure somebody will claim it otherwise).  Again, my points have been made on the talk page, and nobody who is trying to make the link to terrorism has a legitimate response. As for the criticism, I wrote almost the entire article including the "criticism of execution" section and the "casualties" section.  So for those who claim that I am removing ALL criticism, I think they are just showing their ignornance. ED MD 02:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not accuse me of being anti-America or anti Semitic. Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are American, so is most people in S9/11T. Jesus (pbuh) is Jewish, so was Moses (pbuh). --Striver 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your words, Striver--Scribner 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribner's barnstar 

message: If a legitimate dictionary and thesarus both say that the words "shock" and "awe" are synonyms of "terror", then no further source is required to include that fact in the article.  If you feel differently, please try to find a policy or guideline which agrees with you.  I have looked.  Nothing in WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:NOR suggests that using such sources is inappropriate in any way. Starcare 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:OR, one of the three fundamental content policies. You are claiming that the fact that shock, awe, and terror are synonyms has some bearing on the relation between the military doctrine of "shock and awe" and terrorism. (Or perhaps you are not; but if not, the point is decidedly irrelevant.) Unless you can provide a source detailing this connection, you are making a "new analysis" of the ideas expressed in the dictionary. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim disallows the presentation of information about synonyms.  When other sources support the connection to terrorism, then the dictionary is all you need to show the fact that the words are synonyms.  If nobody else was saying that s-a-a was terror, then I might agree with you, but the connection is already established and the dictionary is just further support. Starcare 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are claiming that this fact (that the words are synonyms) has relevance to the section comparing shock and awe and terrorism. What source makes that claim? For instance, has this fact ever appeared in an article about shock and awe? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you Chris, say that the Guardian source supported shock and awe being terrorism "by another name" -- isn't that the definition of a synonym? Publicola 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that the Guardian source supports the assertion that the source makes -- which is that some Arabs view shock and awe as terrorism by another name. This has no bearing on the topic of this section, however -- here we are dicsussing whether the dictionary has something to say about shock and awe and terrorism. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris the Guardian Article is an editorial, with no verifiable facts.  I've emailed the author, Brian Whitaker at both the Guardian and his website requesting proof of his claims.  Here are his email addresses: brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk <brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk> and  brian@al-bab.com <brian@al-bab.com>.  This article, being an editorial is not a valid cite because it's content can not be verified, per WP:V.--Scribner 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. In that case, the information can still be present in the article but should be qualified as the opinion of that columnist -- if he writes for the Guardian I'd assume his perception is worth including. To be honest I am not particularly concerned about the presentation of the information from that article in the current version, as it is a comparatively minor issue. What follows it is the problem -- instead of following it up with the actual arguments presented by actual critics, we get arguments that have been developed by Wikipedia editors for the purposes of writing this article, i.e. original research. Once the original research is excised from the article I'll take up this issue further. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Guardian article is the premise for the argument!--Scribner 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:SENSE suggests that the choice to include that content is intended to make a point, not to inform the dear reader of one of many synonyms of these two words. If it were intended only to inform the reader of word synonyms, it could be removed as trivial, as arguably no other articles do this. It appears to be a very brief form of enthymeme. KWH 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is one source saying that some people think shock and awe is another name for terrorism, and the dictionary agrees.  There is no syllogism implied here, it is simply reporting what is written in reliable sources.  What is more reliable than a thesarus when it comes to what words are synonyms? Publicola 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the mention of the thesaurus synonyms necessary to the claims which the article reproduces? KWH 00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fairly obviously, the dictionary is not saying that "shock and awe" is another name for terrorism, or you would cite the page where it said that. Instead, you've cited the definitions of "shock" and "awe," and then you've done some original research to make the point you want -- which is in fact totally unsupported by the source in question. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions 

message: *Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a thesaurus.
*Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
*Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
=== Verifiability ===
*Burden of evidence is on the editor.
*Self-published sources (online and paper).
=== Recent tags ===
The following tags, WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V, were placed on the article for the mentioned policy violations.--Scribner 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not tags, they are policies, and they haven't been violated.  All statements are supported by cited sources, balancing the National Defense University sources and thus allowing the multiple points of view required by NPOV. All references are easily verifiable. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Islamic?  I'm agnostic. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You too are exhibiting WP:OWN as you just inadvertently admitted to, congratulations.  But in a show of good faith, I'll repeat, as long as your material is cited correctly and pertains to the article, I'll support those edits.  At this time, that's not the case.--Scribner 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not happy with all the left wing 'sources' that are being thrown around here, how hard is it for people to find mainstream sources for what they're saying? If so many people think Shock and Awe is terrorism, you'd think there'd be at least one legit source out there that agrees, since there isn't, we should be moving on--IworkforNASA 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Wikipedia is not 

message: The following tags, WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V, were placed on the article for the mentioned policy violations.--Scribner 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not tags, they are policies, and they haven't been violated.  All statements are supported by cited sources, balancing the National Defense University sources and thus allowing the multiple points of view required by NPOV. All references are easily verifiable. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Islamic?  I'm agnostic. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You too are exhibiting WP:OWN as you just inadvertently admitted to, congratulations.  But in a show of good faith, I'll repeat, as long as your material is cited correctly and pertains to the article, I'll support those edits.  At this time, that's not the case.--Scribner 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not happy with all the left wing 'sources' that are being thrown around here, how hard is it for people to find mainstream sources for what they're saying? If so many people think Shock and Awe is terrorism, you'd think there'd be at least one legit source out there that agrees, since there isn't, we should be moving on--IworkforNASA 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent tags 

message: I have created Shock and awe/sandbox for those who are unhappy with the protected state to edit and show the mediator what they think the article should look like.  I am happy with the protected state, but I will be glad to work on the sandbox version, too, if the mediator suggests that might help. Starcare 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This article exceeds all wiki standards, by far.  Representative of what one can expect to find of Wikipedia...nominated for feature article.--Scribner 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:LEAD is solved by stating,  "Among terrorists organizations and armies that embed their military among civilian populations, using their civilians as human shields, civilian casualties have occurred."--Scribner 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a stretch to call the comparison to terrorism a significant controversy.  Commented at greater length below. Auric04 07:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I went through the sandbox version and researched each claim. I believe I made clear in the edit summaries why certain sources were not acceptable. The statement in the lede graf is not a substantial controversy. In addition, Ullman and Wade are substantially misquoted. KWH 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? 75.35.113.208 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox created for those unhappy with protected state 

message: *Brian Whitaker's op/ed,  "Flags in the dust" is a primary source, and it's usage violates, WP:RS.
*Ullman stated, "We have not seen it; it is not coming.", with regard to the invasion of Iraq.  Again, primary source and if considered authoritative enough, then the use of "shock and awe" in Iraq can't be included in the article because Ullman claimed it never happened.
*Omission of Iraq's use of human shields: if there is any mention of civilian casualties whatsoever, then Iraq's use of human shields has to be mentioned.
Note:  I've pulled my name from mediation because the sock puppet, User:Publicola showed poor faith.  Sock puppet, Publicola made nearly 20 edits and 2 reverts just prior to requesting protection of the article due to edit warring.--Scribner 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly recommend that you please rejoin the Mediation effort (which hadn't even started yet). See m:The Wrong Version. The only chance for getting this article to the right version is via Mediation. Thank you, KWH 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It think it's a mistake.  We may lose one member of our side in the process.  Mediation will force a compromise.  This will be a protracted mediation.  I think Wikipedia should publish this insanity and then be judged for what it is, a good idea that went south due to poor management.  I'll decide in the morning.--Scribner 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you just want to quit editing the article altogether, then you are no longer a participant in the edit conflict, so you can just leave some sort of message for the Mediation Committee to that effect (you Agree not to edit the article further and will accept the results of mediation). Just a thought, but do think it over and make the decision you think is best. KWH 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recused from mediation.--Scribner 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS, the use of primary sources, Ullman, and omission of Iraq's use of human shields 

message: *  Whitaker, B. (March 24, 2003) "Flags in the dust" Guardian Unlimited
*#  Primary source, op-ed.  Fails verifiability.
*#  Emailed author twice, once on his website and once at the Guardian--no response.
*#  Note:  Use in this article as premise for argument, argument fails per rules of logic.
*  Lindorff, D. (September 5, 2003) "Courage and the Democrats" CounterPunch
*#  Self published, no peer review.  Fails verifiability.
*  Henry Michaels, "US plans 'shock and awe' blitzkrieg in Iraq", World Socialist Web Site
*#  World Socialist Web Site.  Fails verifiability.
*  Chernus, I. (January 27, 2003) "Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?" Common Dreams News Center
*#  Self published, no peer review.  Fails verifiability.
*  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a thesaurus.
*  YouTube video possible copyright violations, and  unverifiable.
----
Removing all material referenced to these sources.--Scribner 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read WP:V?  In what way do those sources "fail verifiability"?  Please be specific, because my understanding is that they are all verifiability -- just click on the links.  You don't need to be able to email an author to have verifiable -- otherwise all the dead authors wouldn't be verifiable.  Are you actually trying to talk about WP:RS? RG06 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V verifiability problems 

message: ::Auric04 - the claims that you re-added are already represented in the second section of the "sandbox version", with appropriate context, as shown below. If we had verifiable criticism of these points of doctrine, then they could be cited also as counterpoints. I'll let you or someone else decide to revert your edit, but having both of these in is redundant. KWH 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "in context" supposed to be less biased than "without context"?  Because as I read them, there's not much difference.  What exactly is this extra context supposed to say? 75.35.115.17 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure

message: Chris Parham has taken to deleting the dictionary definitions of the words "shock" and "awe" as "OR".  On what grounds, actually mentioned in WP:OR are these being objected to?  The fact is that when you are discussing the semantic equivalence of different terms, the dictionary is about the most reliable of all reference sources.  It's not "original," and it is as reliable as sources can get. Publicola 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's nonsense, which is why no published source has suggested that shock and awe is related to terrorism because the terms "shock" and "awe" are synonymous with "terror." Similarly, nobody claims that terrorism and electrocution are similar, despite the fact that "terror" and "shock" are synonyms, or that Europe is evil because both start with "E". More significantly, this is original research because you are citing the source as evidence for an implication that the source clearly does not support. You are taking the source, and then extrapolating that the dictionary's discussions of "shock," "awe," and "terror" have some bearing on the concepts of "Shock and Awe" and "terrorism." Not only do you claim that this source, which never mentions any of the topics discussed in this article, is relevant to these topics, you imply that it supports the assertion that shock and awe is similar to terrorism. One would assume, however, that if the dictionary had something to say about Shock and Awe, it would go to the trouble of mentioning the topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the older parts of the discussion page, I thought this issue had been laid to rest.  However, since the discussion seems to be starting again, I'll jump in.  I think Chris states it pretty well - the dictionary definitions of shock and awe are totally irrelevant here.  Both words have numerous synonyms - "awe" includes "admiration and reverence", and shock includes "stupor" and "jolt".  The fact that you chose to highlight a SINGLE synonym illustrates that you're trying to make a very specific point, one which is biased.  You're trying to lead the readers to a conclusion in a way that is not consistent with objective presentation of material.  If people want to know synonyms, they can look it up on a thesaurus.  Even if we assume this "dictionary" definition is valid, the links seems to have been cherry picked and interpreted to make this point.  "Shock" links to dictionary.com; "awe" links to thesuarus.com.  The entry for "awe" on dictionary.com does not contain the word "terror"; neither does the entry for "shock" on thesaurus.com.  I find it hard to believe the choice of links was made for any reason other than to introduce bias.  It seems quite clear to me that while the definitions themselves are not OR, their presention and inclusion at that particular point within this particular articles involves creative interpretation and invites a non-objective viewpoint.  As such, they shold be excluded.Auric04 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions aren't OR