Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 3

message: See: thesaurus.com terrorism
Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym. 
I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I  suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the :Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article.  Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Synonyms 

message: This article needs a better title. "American terrorism" is needlessly POV, and "Allegations of state terrorism by USA" could imply that the allegations (instead of the alleged terrorism) come from the U.S. I'm afraid I can't think of anything better offhand. Fagstein 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is more POV about the first than the second?--Paraphelion 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have similar concerns about State terrorism in Sri Lanka and State terrorism in Syria? rootology (T) 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that any article with the word allegation or accusation or alleged or similar terms are inherently POV and unencyclopaedic.--Kalsermar 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start at the top 

message: Okay, maybe asking to define terrorism in the wrong approach, because thus far both Tom  and User:Seabhcan, two ideological opposites, seem to think this is pointless. How about we approach it this way: 
Does terrorism in this article deal with: 
* political assinations?  Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, page 197: "In his discussion on terrorism, Walzer gives examples of political assassinations. These, however, cannot be considered acts of terrorism. While they are definitely violent acts, the targets are not chosen at random but are government officials. Unless the average person is a government official there will be no real fear for their own safety. The fear comes from not knowing whether or not they will be next with the distinct possibility that they could be."
* war crimes?
* torture?
* accidental military actions?
I personally think the following should be included :
* torture
* Many covert CIA actions, but not all covert CIA actions
* military campaigns which "intentionally" target civilians
The following should not be included :
* political assinations  
* war crimes
* accidental military actions
* military campaigns which target "legitamate" military targets, but accidently kill civilians.
...should we try to reach a consensus on each section now, or wait?  Because when I write this list of what should and should not be included, certain sections automatically stay, and certain sections seem to drop out.  Do we include accusations by other countries that the US is conducting terrorism, as long as we state in the article? Is this allowed as long as we clearly begin the section by stating that "Country x accused the US of terrorism..."? I think we should. What do you all think? 
Maybe instead of trying to define which general acts are terrorism, it would be easier to define what  general acts are not terrorism.
Signed: Travb (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above, first section, are acts of terrorism. An act of terrorism is when you specifically target civilians. Political assassinations are .... political assassinations, political figured are normally religious or governmental leaders. War crimes are war crimes, events taking place during the course of a war, declared by act of congress, are not acts of terrorism, unless specifically targetting civilians to instill terror. Covert CIA actions proven to target civilians, meaning kill them purposely are acts of terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Covert CIA actions not targetting civilians is not terrorism. Torture is not terrorism if the person is not being tortured to instill terrorism on a larger scale. If they are publically tortured or annouced publically to be tortured or some combination that involved inflicting fear on a civilian populace then its terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely agree with this.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about CIA actions not targetting civilians but meant to terrorize civilians?--Paraphelion 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a distinction should be made as well as to whether the actions were authorized and who exactly commits it.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you state:"An act of terrorism is when you specifically target civilians." what source are you citing?  What source are you citing in everything you wrote here? Citing sources, what is terrorism.  Your opinion is welcome, but to be in the article, it must be verifiable. Please cite your sources. I cited several dictionary definitions of terrorism.  I look forward to your cited information.Travb (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My deepest apologies I thought we were giving opinions, you didnt cite anything you wrote up there for what should and shouldnt be considered terrorism so I thought this was a cite free zone. Can you please provide the sources that led to your conclusions please. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I could agree with this Zer0faults defintion too, including the terrorism bit. Travb (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should this article cover?

message: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Definition_and_the_term_American_terrorism
in
*The whole beggining of the article, definitions and such.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
====Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion====
The following was deleted, after being added today:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE  In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as: 
:"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..." Therefore, acts performed or supported by the U.S. government that meet this standard codified in U.S. law would constitute terrorism under U.S. law, at least if performed by someone other than the U.S. government. 
Can the user who deleted this explain why?  Or I will restore this edit. Travb (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I am restoring this deletion, the wikiuser states that it is original research, which is absurd. Travb (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that wikiuser was Tom Harrison who as an administrator should know better. This is not the first time he has deleted fully sourced contributions with such non-explanations. I don't mean to get personal, it's not my nature, but I am glad other editors actually restored my contribution this time and called Tom on it.--NYCJosh 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning of article: Definition_and_the_term_American_terrorism

message: The following was deleted, after being added today:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE  In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as: 
:"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..." Therefore, acts performed or supported by the U.S. government that meet this standard codified in U.S. law would constitute terrorism under U.S. law, at least if performed by someone other than the U.S. government. 
Can the user who deleted this explain why?  Or I will restore this edit. Travb (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I am restoring this deletion, the wikiuser states that it is original research, which is absurd. Travb (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that wikiuser was Tom Harrison who as an administrator should know better. This is not the first time he has deleted fully sourced contributions with such non-explanations. I don't mean to get personal, it's not my nature, but I am glad other editors actually restored my contribution this time and called Tom on it.--NYCJosh 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion

message: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Middle_East
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
...
I also question the part regarding the Baghdad bombings. This part is pure speculation on the part of some agents and the newspaper reporter. Reading the piece also trows much doubt whether anything really happened and by whom and to what effect... --Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NYCJosh, I will say this once to you as well, do not question my good faith or accuse me of vandalism.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As long as the article specifically calls it an act of terrorism by the United States or specifically calls it state sponsored terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My questions regarding the Baghdad bombing are 1)there is confusion as to whom commited what acts and the details are sketchy and contradictory. There is nothing in the piece that specifically says that the US knowingly authorized a bombing of a schoolbus full of children.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's difficult to establish precisely whether the school bus bombing was authorized by the CIA in Langley, some CIA field officer, or some CIA asset like Allawi. We may never know that given the nature of this type of thing. We are even lucky to know as much as we do, thanks to some unusually forthcoming intel officials. But the CIA clearly authorized and funded the campaign aimed at governemnt and civilian targets, according to the article. It is not our job here at WP to go try to go beyond what the sources say. The article fully supports the terrorism charge. --NYCJosh 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the article specifically states that the US sponsored or supported this act of terrorism. If it does not then we are not to put words in our sources mouths. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle East

message: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Yugoslavia_v._United_States
out
*Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source if you have no source, this is your opinion. Travb (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, you will have to come up with the source that says it is terrorism. Sorry, that's how we work around here.--Kalsermar 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court cases:Yugoslavia_v._United_States

message: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Other_allegations_of_American_terrorism
====Chomsky quote====
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
*U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism - entire section: This article is bad enough dealing in allegations, a subject I think is highly unencyclopaedic, but so long as it is not titled Allegation of state terrorism by the United States and any plan(s) that may have been thought of but never implemented, it should at least deal with allegations of STT, not plans that were never implemented. Other than that, some of the bitses were highly speculative, like the actual killing of people. Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who states that lynching is not state terrorism? I await a source.Travb (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous comments, cite source that it is if you wish it to stay in.--Kalsermar 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should, and you must. Travb (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other_allegations_of_American_terrorism

message: I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
*U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism - entire section: This article is bad enough dealing in allegations, a subject I think is highly unencyclopaedic, but so long as it is not titled Allegation of state terrorism by the United States and any plan(s) that may have been thought of but never implemented, it should at least deal with allegations of STT, not plans that were never implemented. Other than that, some of the bitses were highly speculative, like the actual killing of people. Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky quote

message: out
*Tolerance of lynching - I took this out because it isn't STT even if it is true.Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who states that lynching is not state terrorism? I await a source.Travb (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous comments, cite source that it is if you wish it to stay in.--Kalsermar 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacks

message: The following section should be removed in my opinion:
*Wounded Knee
*Vietnam
*Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations
Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people,  who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre of Wounded Knee

message: The following section should be removed in my opinion:
*Wounded Knee
*Vietnam
*Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations
Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people,  who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. action in Vietnam

message: The following section should be removed in my opinion:
*Wounded Knee
*Vietnam
*Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations
Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people,  who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article.  I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should, and you must. Travb (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ba'ath Party

message: out:
*Plans, things that were not carried out. Why? Because it did not occur and like I said elsewhere, this is not about any and all plans ever concieved. Is this not reasonable?
*Acts commited by non government sanctioned ops. To answer an edit summary, no, if a Libyan citizen' without authorization commits an act of terror it isn't by the USA. 9/11 is terrorism because it wasn't a regulated national military op but it is not Saudi ST because they did not authorize it (as far as we know)--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General removal

message: In the 1980s the United States financed and trained the Honduran military. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the United States downplayed the Honduran military's role in torture in secret jails and extrajudicial killings in reports to Congress while privately pressuring the government of Honduras to curb the abuses.  The authors states the terror campaign targeted hundreds of Honduran labor leaders, union organizers and human rights attorneys.
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
...
*Honduras - entire section: Similar reasoning, it is not STT by the US even if true and carried out as stated. The US may have financed things, it is also a fact that they tried to persuade them from commiting terrorism. Finally, it was commited, if at all, by Honduras, not the US...--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honduras

message: ===Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism===
I posted a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism as per the suggestion of JKelly at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_requested. Travb (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inviting others to help resolve this dispute

message: I posted a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism as per the suggestion of JKelly at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_requested. Travb (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism

message: As suggested before, I requested two people to give there opinion on the dispute, both helped resolve two past heated disputes I had with the most intellegent and crafty conservative I have met on wikipedia, User:Rjensen (who I also invited to help edit this page).  
*User_talk:Tyrenius#Request_for_third_party_monitor
*User_talk:Fagstein#Request_for_third_party_monitor
Both got involved before because I requested their help at: Wikipedia:Third Opinion some months ago. Travb (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for third party

message: Perhaps this whole debate about what terrorism is, is not necessary....
To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to #Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism under #What is terrorism? Thanks for everyone's cooperation and hard work in making this article better. Travb (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism 

message: This article needs a better title...
To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to #Start at the top under #Title_of_the_article Thanks for everyone's diigence and efforts in making this article better, I think we are making progress in hashing out a consensus... Travb (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start at the top 

message: Am I misreading this diff? rootology (T) 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, no, I know I did not remove anything on purpose and I will revert. I do not know how this could happen and I apologize.--Kalsermar 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, notifying me on my talk page would have been the nicer thing to do.... --Kalsermar 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, wasn't trying to start a problem or anything (I should have posted it there, you are right). rootology (T) 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at these differences, during the 9 minutes before my edit, you'll notice only my edit is added, the intervening edits by NYCJosh and Travb do not appear so I am guessing a server error while saving the page or an edit conflict that didn't show up.--Kalsermar 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out User:Rootology.  I am sure it was a simple mistake of User:Kalsermar. No damage done. Travb (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to do it here where people whose comments were removed might see it.--Paraphelion 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, absolutely true, to the letter. But other people might have given me a hopller and a chance to restore things and let me, who is after all the victim of circumstances here, a chance to explain it. I thank Rootology for acknowledging the mistake and accept his apology.--Kalsermar 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalsemer: removing others' comments? 

message: This is a dispute about the content of every aspect of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, including the name of the article, and almost every word in this article.Travb (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed a name change, based on a name change of Israeli terrorism.  Please see above.  And please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist.  I would apprectiate you not lableing our views. In addition, There is no coherent policy of terorrism that is outlined in the article I have actively attempted to define what this article is and is not, but I have met feirce resistance.  I welcome your constructive commments.  I don't see any proposals of your own User:Tbeatty, except to delete this entire article.  Since the AfD was "no consensus" this is not an option.  Therefore, please make constructive comprimises and help to build a consensus.  See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. Travb (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have instead labeled people who disagree with you as deletionists, perhaps no one should label their fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made edits.  I made the Honduras part NPOV.  The problem is that once the truth is revealed and balanced it is no longer terrorism and was (rightfully) deleted by another editor.  This is the fundamental problem.  Once the items are "balanced" there is no reason to keep them in a one-sided article.  And I said the article was an "anti-American blog".  I have no idea what your views are nor have I characterized them.  --Tbeatty 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tbeatty and TDC, you nailed what's wrong with this whole article perfectly.Kalsermar 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't include you as a "deletionist" TDC, I have actually complimented you and Mongo's work above, I can find the sentence if you like.  We are not talking about the flat earth society, saying Nicaragua vs. US is like "Some people (who) beleive that aliens have created a base on the moon" is not rational. I think you are misquoting: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). These views are not minority views, like your "aliens have created a base on the moon" idea.  Please also note, I have suggested a name change above,  could we agree on this less controversial name change? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats with you and this deletionist term, its almost like an attack, can you please refrain from labeling your fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has never been an apology from you, and I have apologized repeatedly, one can say you are an hypocrite for taking offense. Travb (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can agree that all of these sources are verifiable, can't we?  TDC, seems to admit such: There is a world of difference between text that while might meet WP:V does not come anywhere near WP:RS. In addition, I could dig through all of the wikipedians arguments and find many instances were they admit that their are many sources.  In regards to reliable I can also list every single referenced source, and we can determine what is reliable and unreliable.  Problem is, this is a value judgment, so quoting the national archives, the International court of justice, the New York Times, etc. may not be considered reliable to some, but reliable to others.  And even if we "inclusionists" were to establish that, for example, these three sources were reliable, then many of those conservatives here would then start to play the defintion game: argue that the article really doesn't say that this is terrorism.  So it is a lose lose situation. But less play this game anyway: Mongo, which sources do you find are not reliable? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there may exist millions of sources the issue is finding and presenting them, you write entire paragraphs to each response yet show no sources, its starting to make me think other then Chomsky these allegations dont exist after all. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The indiscriminate  blowing up of hotels and civilian airliners is exactly what I intend to discuss in this article when I have a moment. I am presently on holiday and thus separated from my usual cabinets of sources and snippets - but I'll be back on the case in time. These are acts described as terrorism by reliable sources and where convictions have taken place. Acts that are alleged to have been supported by the US and have been described as state terrorism at the UN general assembly. In other words, the very basis of this article. I've brushed around this issue about four times on this talk page but it seems to have been obscured by a whole lot of bollocks about wounded knee and the meaning of "terrorism". There are significant allegations of engagement in state terrorism levelled against the United States in Cuba 1960-97 (and beyond). Just as Ronald Reagan accused Cuba of engaging in State terrorism in 1984. That both nations have made these allegations is not in question, or in doubt. They just need to be detailed (Cuba is on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page so get to work) and everyone needs to calm down.--Zleitzen 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleged to have been, described at the UN... The cuban accused the US and the CIA had knowledge. That does not constitute an act of terrorism carried out by the United States. This one could be an iffy but I will state again, it is nothing more than allegations. The act was carried out by non US nationals. That the groups were linked to the CIA or that the CIA had knowledge does not mean they authorized it or helped carry it out. This is something that is rightly covered in Cubana Flight 455 but does not belong here.--Kalsermar 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon Me? The groups were linked to the CIA and these acts of terrorism are alleged to have been acts of state terrorism by the United States. All allegations made by notable sources. The very basis of this article. Get serious please.--Zleitzen 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the record, Cuba is not in the State terrorism article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kalsermar, let me repeat myself for the fifth time on this page, please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist. RE: thinking quickly the only thing I can come up with that would qualify might be Wounded Knee. You stated above that their were other sections you would want to keep, have you changed your mind now? it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia. And who gets to decide this?  We all do.  That is why building a consesus is paramount.  We need comprimise, deleting large sections of text repeatedly is not comprimise, it is the beginning of and edit war.  Until some editors accept that this article will continue to exist on wikipedia, then we are going to continue to have problems.  RE: If this article is ever going to be taken seriously and loose it's NPOV tags and show civil discourse between editors it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia.  I think the best way that this article can be taken seriously is by a balance between two opposing views. That means deletionist editors start contributing to the article. with references which support their POV. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research...The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Travb (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Travb, I will use the term "anti-American" as often as I please, especially being a quote unquote "deletionist" I have that right. Please also be reminded that readding inappropriate text to the article to suit your POV could be considered destructive behaviour. The only way this article can ever be taken seriously is if it meets encyclopaedic standards, which means it should deal in facts.--Kalsermar 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed a lot since being gone. Your response is here:  User_talk:Zer0faults#Message_to_User:Kalsermar Please notice that almost every instance of "deletionist" has been removed.  The only ones left are those by other people, and ones that I may have missed.  Please respond on User_talk:Zer0faults page, as he requested.Travb (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

message: * I would like to see the name of this article changed.  This will solve a majority of the dispute. I would like a third party to arbitrate what is included and excluded in this article.  I would like certain users, who have only deleted referenced sections, and added no material at all, to verify their accusations with citied sources. The sources in this article met two of the three requirements of an article: Verifiability and No original research, but lack NPOV. I would ask wikipedians to either balance out the article with their own verified sources, or to cite why they are deleting these large verified sections. Those editors who have actually added content to this page, have met the burden of two of the three requirements for an article.  I invite those wikieditors, who have previously only deleted material, to add researched material to balance out the article. As per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research...The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. I invite all wikiusers to strive for balance in this article, by researching these sections and adding research which helps balance this article.  No matter what we do, sections continue to be deleted, so I requested this page be protected, requested this RfC, and requested a mediator, this has stopped a major edit war, with 3RR's etc. Nothing that the editors who contribute to this article do seems to be working and as a result, I have unfortunatly been impatient. Because I get flusttered, I have asked a lot of pointed personal questions about the editors themselves, which I suspect maybe against wikipedia policy (I can't actually find the policy--I am sure some of the other editors will). In my defense I can only say that in heated edit wars such as this, it is important to try and understand users underlying reasons for disrupting a page, I was attempting to get at the core problem: I see wikieditors using wikipolicy to push their own POV because the content is disagreeable and offensive to them. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. Some wikiusers have not made "a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently" instead they have deleted large portions of verified text, and added nothing to the article itself. Travb (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: *I agree, surely the deletionists should propose alternatives or ask first on this discussion page, before deleting. This is meant to be a team-effort, not a one-man crusade for 'truth'. User:Green01 2:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed a name change, based on a name change of Israeli terrorism.  Please see above.  And please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist.  I would apprectiate you not lableing our views. In addition, There is no coherent policy of terorrism that is outlined in the article I have actively attempted to define what this article is and is not, but I have met feirce resistance.  I welcome your constructive commments.  I don't see any proposals of your own User:Tbeatty, except to delete this entire article.  Since the AfD was "no consensus" this is not an option.  Therefore, please make constructive comprimises and help to build a consensus.  See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. Travb (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have instead labeled people who disagree with you as deletionists, perhaps no one should label their fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made edits.  I made the Honduras part NPOV.  The problem is that once the truth is revealed and balanced it is no longer terrorism and was (rightfully) deleted by another editor.  This is the fundamental problem.  Once the items are "balanced" there is no reason to keep them in a one-sided article.  And I said the article was an "anti-American blog".  I have no idea what your views are nor have I characterized them.  --Tbeatty 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tbeatty and TDC, you nailed what's wrong with this whole article perfectly.Kalsermar 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't include you as a "deletionist" TDC, I have actually complimented you and Mongo's work above, I can find the sentence if you like.  We are not talking about the flat earth society, saying Nicaragua vs. US is like "Some people (who) beleive that aliens have created a base on the moon" is not rational. I think you are misquoting: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). These views are not minority views, like your "aliens have created a base on the moon" idea.  Please also note, I have suggested a name change above,  could we agree on this less controversial name change? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats with you and this deletionist term, its almost like an attack, can you please refrain from labeling your fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has never been an apology from you, and I have apologized repeatedly, one can say you are an hypocrite for taking offense. Travb (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can agree that all of these sources are verifiable, can't we?  TDC, seems to admit such: There is a world of difference between text that while might meet WP:V does not come anywhere near WP:RS. In addition, I could dig through all of the wikipedians arguments and find many instances were they admit that their are many sources.  In regards to reliable I can also list every single referenced source, and we can determine what is reliable and unreliable.  Problem is, this is a value judgment, so quoting the national archives, the International court of justice, the New York Times, etc. may not be considered reliable to some, but reliable to others.  And even if we "inclusionists" were to establish that, for example, these three sources were reliable, then many of those conservatives here would then start to play the defintion game: argue that the article really doesn't say that this is terrorism.  So it is a lose lose situation. But less play this game anyway: Mongo, which sources do you find are not reliable? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there may exist millions of sources the issue is finding and presenting them, you write entire paragraphs to each response yet show no sources, its starting to make me think other then Chomsky these allegations dont exist after all. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *I'd also like to mention that Stone's diatribes precisely illustrate what this article is going to be, a POV pusher's magnet of people who equate a wartime, legitimate act of Israel or a legitimate act of the US with the indiscriminate blowing up of pizza parlors and civillian airliners. If this article is ever going to be taken seriously and loose it's NPOV tags and show civil discourse between editors it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia. An article about acts of terrorism commited by the government of the United States, terrorism that fits the word. Acts that have been commited and have been called terrorism by reliable sources or where convictions have taken place. Funny thing is that this article will somehow then seem to wither down to almost nothingness, thinking quickly the only thing I can come up with that would qualify might be Wounded Knee. If this article does not do that it will forever be a collection of accusations, allegations and anti-American diatribes. I have said before in AfD's and elsewhere, any article that deals in allegations or accusations is inherently unencyclopaedic and should not be published on an encyclopaedia that wishes to be taken seriously.--Kalsermar 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The indiscriminate  blowing up of hotels and civilian airliners is exactly what I intend to discuss in this article when I have a moment. I am presently on holiday and thus separated from my usual cabinets of sources and snippets - but I'll be back on the case in time. These are acts described as terrorism by reliable sources and where convictions have taken place. Acts that are alleged to have been supported by the US and have been described as state terrorism at the UN general assembly. In other words, the very basis of this article. I've brushed around this issue about four times on this talk page but it seems to have been obscured by a whole lot of bollocks about wounded knee and the meaning of "terrorism". There are significant allegations of engagement in state terrorism levelled against the United States in Cuba 1960-97 (and beyond). Just as Ronald Reagan accused Cuba of engaging in State terrorism in 1984. That both nations have made these allegations is not in question, or in doubt. They just need to be detailed (Cuba is on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page so get to work) and everyone needs to calm down.--Zleitzen 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleged to have been, described at the UN... The cuban accused the US and the CIA had knowledge. That does not constitute an act of terrorism carried out by the United States. This one could be an iffy but I will state again, it is nothing more than allegations. The act was carried out by non US nationals. That the groups were linked to the CIA or that the CIA had knowledge does not mean they authorized it or helped carry it out. This is something that is rightly covered in Cubana Flight 455 but does not belong here.--Kalsermar 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon Me? The groups were linked to the CIA and these acts of terrorism are alleged to have been acts of state terrorism by the United States. All allegations made by notable sources. The very basis of this article. Get serious please.--Zleitzen 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the record, Cuba is not in the State terrorism article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kalsermar, let me repeat myself for the fifth time on this page, please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist. RE: thinking quickly the only thing I can come up with that would qualify might be Wounded Knee. You stated above that their were other sections you would want to keep, have you changed your mind now? it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia. And who gets to decide this?  We all do.  That is why building a consesus is paramount.  We need comprimise, deleting large sections of text repeatedly is not comprimise, it is the beginning of and edit war.  Until some editors accept that this article will continue to exist on wikipedia, then we are going to continue to have problems.  RE: If this article is ever going to be taken seriously and loose it's NPOV tags and show civil discourse between editors it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia.  I think the best way that this article can be taken seriously is by a balance between two opposing views. That means deletionist editors start contributing to the article. with references which support their POV. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research...The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Travb (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Travb, I will use the term "anti-American" as often as I please, especially being a quote unquote "deletionist" I have that right. Please also be reminded that readding inappropriate text to the article to suit your POV could be considered destructive behaviour. The only way this article can ever be taken seriously is if it meets encyclopaedic standards, which means it should deal in facts.--Kalsermar 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have missed a lot since being gone. Your response is here:  User_talk:Zer0faults#Message_to_User:Kalsermar Please notice that almost every instance of "deletionist" has been removed.  The only ones left are those by other people, and ones that I may have missed.  Please respond on User_talk:Zer0faults page, as he requested.Travb (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts

message: I'd like to remove reference to ST911.org in this sentence in the first section:
:As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zürich states,
Ganser's research was not in any way connected with ST911.org. In fact this organisation wasn't even formed until nearly two years after his research was published. He is now a member, yes, but this sentence implies that the research is somehow connected with ST911.org.
Also, I'd like to remove the "weasel words" tag from the end of the Gladio section. This sentence is a quote. If someone has a problem with the weaselness of the words they should write a letter to the Italian Senate.Self-Described Seabhcán 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganser's association with a group of well know crackpots, including Lyndon Larouch BTW, goes directly to his credibility as a source in the article, considering the bulk of the material on Gladio is derived from his research. I don’t know why the weasel word tag is there, but the Italian Senate, according to the source, had nothing to do with the report. The report was issued by the  Italian Left Democrat party, who had their own Soviet financed stay behind armies (PCI). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy to remove the "weasel words" tag, which I added, simply site who said the sentence.  I would suggest not saying the Italian Senate, since TDC pointed out that only certain members of the senate said this. I think the As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth is TDC's attempt to discredit Ganser. I think it should be removed.  TDC and User:Seabhcan, can we comprimise? TDC, we remove the As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth and User:Seabhcan states the report was issued by the Italian Left Democrat party?  TDC has repeatedly stated that much of the Gladio information is a fraud, which is not even mentioned in the Gladio article.  If this is the case, then this portion should not be in the article.Travb (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with this, at least until I have time to confirm whether or not the report was issued as he says.Self-Described Seabhcán 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, Ganser's association with the tin foil hat brigade is a severe negative for his credibility, and the information, especialy his use of 30-31b, need to reflect this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that trying to connect research done in 1999-2003 with an organisation which only formed in 2005 in order to, as you state, damage the researcher's credibility, is a little bit of POV-pushing? Self-Described Seabhcán 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is permitted to correct errors after consultation on the talk page. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was not an "error", it was a content dispute, as the talk page spells out. And I do not believe it is ever acceptable for an editor involved in an article to edit the article after it has been protected. I would ask you to self revert until the discussion is concluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganser and ST911.org 

message: I suggest, people go find some sources to support this article. Renaming the article to fit the lack of information does not make much sense, however renaming it to something that sounds more factually secure when the article lacks proof of even allegations seems pointless. It will have even less of a leg to stand on. Are you reading what people are saying? They are saying there is no proof of even allegations and instead you want to rename it to something that makes it seem more factual? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, my goal isn't just the title, but the scope of the article. Terrorism in the United States would be a good article, as it could cover attacks against us, alleged things, history, depictions in US media, impact, everything. Unfortunately the word really does need to be in there. rootology (T) 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not mind the word being there, however this article lacks proof of much of its current statements, you are proposing an entirely new article, for that this can be deleted and new one with a proper name and focus started. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to delete anything. All we have to do is expand it out, let's say in this sandbox. Then when it's roughly hammered out, we ask an admin to swap that for live and unprotect. Given the tremendous amount of research work done on this, and general work, I think it would be a bad idea to just blow this away. rootology (T) 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You basically want to rewrite this article into a much larger scope, then rename it. Hopefulyl this includes finding sources for much that is lacking sources, if not you are still left with the same content that will just be removed for lacking sources but in a larger article with a different name. I do not mind this, however if the information taken from here has the same problem when added elsewhere, its probably not going to fix anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance in the new article Nicaragua vs. United States has the same problem there as here, its based solely on taking Chomsky, who is not a lawyer, nor has a law degree in interpreting Unlawful combat into terrorism. This is probably then going to be extended to the other court case, where once again a non expert in the field is being used to justify transforming a legal definition, a legal charge into something else. Chomsky should not be the sole source for calling all acts of unlawful combat to being equal to terrorism, he isnt even a source as he has no law degree or law training. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again the Cuba section as well, none of the source provided regarding the extradiction of Luis Carriles support the US was sponsoring terrorism. The same problem of a lack of support exists. These issues need to be addressed before anythnig is renamed, the problem is they are not verifiable for even allegations, much less factual proof of anything. They fail WP:OR, WP:RS. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA's prior affiliation with Possada and Carriles is only relevant to this article if he was still emloyed by them at the time of the bombing, other wise, they are independant non state actors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only that, but even if they were employed by the CIA at the time, they might have planted these bombs on their time off. In fact, seeing that the CIA would never do anything bad, and exist only to promote love and happiness around the world (remember that the US' main export in fiscal year 2005 was 'brotherly love'), then by definition, these guys, if indeed they do exist, could not have be CIA members. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen, if there is evidence, not speculation mind you, but evidence that Possada and Carriles were indeed working for the CIA as they were Circa early 60's, then you have a case, but there exist no such information, and the information from GWU's NSA archive only reinforces the fact that the CIA had nothing to do with these two in 1976. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:TDC wrote: The CIA's prior affiliation with Possada and Carriles is only relevant to this article if he was still emloyed by them at the time of the bombing, other wise, they are independant non state actors. Are you acknowledging Possada and Carriles are terrorists? Yes or no please. Travb (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Of course I am, but there is no link between the actions of Possada and Carriles in 1976 and their prior affiliation with the CIA. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly was the charge in Panama that they were extradicted to the US after serving? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: In an effort to try and build consensus, I built this graph, allowing every person the opportunity to have a say in what stays in the article, and what should be removed.  The most controversial sections we can discuss here on the talk page, and attempt to reach a consensus. If I forgot anyone, please let me know.Travb (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This graph may have some merit provided it does not end up being a voting contest. Something that is against WP policy guidlines or unencyclopaedic or doesn't belong in this article cannot stay just because it got more "votes", or the other way of course. In onther words, quantity of "votes" is less important than quality of argument.--Kalsermar 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. Who is "Faggotstein"? Is that supposed to be a personal attack against me? Fagstein 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF It is actually some one who voted in the AfD, it is an actual user: User:Faggotstein There appears to be a large group of possible sockpuppets who may have voted in the Afd, but trust me, I am going to be the last one to pursue this. I would suggest doing a checkuser.Travb (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should stay in the article?

message: Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  
section                                               	Fagstein	Faggotstein	FCYTravis	Gamaliel	Gazpacho	Give Peace A Chance	Green01                                    	Goldom	HGB
Number                                                	ONE     	TWO        	THREE    	FOUR    	FIVE    	SIX                	SEVEN                                      	EIGHT 	NINE
Section                                               	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Title of the article, should it remain the same?      	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Change to American State-Terrorism, or keep	      	
Change title to: American political violence ?        	        	           	         	        	        	                   	No                                         	      	
Beginning of  the article                             	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Definition and the term American terrorism            	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Don't delete                               	      	
Criticism of the term                                 	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Cuba                                                  	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Nicaragua                                             	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Middle East                                           	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Western Europe:                                       	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Operation Gladio                                      	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Court cases                                           	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Nicaragua vs. United States                           	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Yugoslavia v. United States                           	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Other allegations of American terrorism               	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Chomsky quote                                         	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Timothy McVeigh                                       	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Massacre of Wounded Knee                              	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
U.S. action in Vietnam                                	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Ba'ath Party                                          	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Keep                                       	      	
Deleted Sections                                      	        	           	         	        	        	                   	                                           	      	
Honduras                                              	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Restore                                    	      	
Iran v. United States                                 	        	           	         	        	        	                   	Restore                                    	      	
:I'm sorry. Who is "Faggotstein"? Is that supposed to be a personal attack against me? Fagstein 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF It is actually some one who voted in the AfD, it is an actual user: User:Faggotstein There appears to be a large group of possible sockpuppets who may have voted in the Afd, but trust me, I am going to be the last one to pursue this. I would suggest doing a checkuser.Travb (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fagstein   Faggotstein  FCYTravis   Gamaliel   Gazpacho   Give Peace A Chance Green01   Goldom   HGB 

message: though there are many mirrors, the direct archive of operation northwoods was taken down today.  It was worse than state sponsored terror it was plans to commit or fake acts of terror on american military and civilian targets by our government to create a "healthy wave of indigation"...sound familiar?
http://128.164.127.251/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf (OWNtheNWO 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its fragmented and specifically asks particular people their opinions, not everyone. The one I am making is for everyone to voice thier opinions, not just the people created in a list above. It also attempts to make certain points with footnotes instead of people reading the content on their own and judging it based on that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also people wont be limited in their responses to a few words not have to confine those words to the borders of the template. It was a nice effort, but as you put it not user friendly. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I eagerly await what you come up with Zerofaults, seems like a good idea you have there.--Kalsermar 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: apparently wiki isn't the only place deterimined individuals are working to sweep this under the rug

message: User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Antagonism? Travb (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your personal issues off of the article talk space, thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Antagonism?

message: How would you all feel if we archived the old comments above #What should stay in the article?  A kind of fresh start while we build a straw poll. 
I was considering archiving #What should stay in the article?, but I think this could serve as a sort of one example of a straw poll. 
We could archive everything above #Non content related issue if wanted. 
Either way, I won't do anything until we get a "yes" or "no" from at least two people.Travb (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go ahead and archive everything -- this page is too long.  Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...If anyone objects, we can revert. Travb (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No arguments here!--Kalsermar 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we archive the comments?

message: I took the liberty of setting up a sub-page. I had the idea for this and then read that Zerofaults was planning similar and after consultation set it up. See Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls (Thank you for the move Travb). Hope this looks ok, I've never done this before.
I suggest we give it 4 days perhaps or a week at most to get a feeling of what is or isn't supported while contentious issues or when there's no clear consensus polls can be given some more time. I remind everyone again that this isn't a blind vote and Wikipedia policy still applies. Feel free to add polls or comments to this if you want.
I'd like to ask everyone who states an opinion to do so with some brevity and to not let this degenerate into another heated debate. There's always this talkpage for more indepth discussions. This is just to get a consensus going, not to rehash debates.--Kalsermar 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my input here --Kalsermar 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw polls

message: I have debated for the past couple of days of just abandoning this page. Those who created this page have stopped posting days ago, one went on a wikivacation citing "childness".  And only myself and those who wanted this page deleted remain.  I learned a lot about wikipolicy (and how others use it), and how to make a kewl graph, so it is not a total loss. Travb (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debating