Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 10

message: If this article were a comprehensive examination of current and past US foreign policy then some of your points would be relevant as responses to criticism. However, this article lists some examples of terrorism perpetrated by the US gov't, and as such, going in the order of your bullet points: 1. the reasons given for the underlying US policy which includes terrorism; 2. the alleged lack of US terror against democratic gov'ts (not true in 1953 Iran, against Arbenz, Chile 1972 and many other examples); 3. the number of victims (again, not true since WWII, since the US achieved superpower status, the US has been number one in number of people killed as part of its wars, offical and unofficial); 4. the lack of US media focus on other conflict zones; 5. the examples of US soldiers committing atrocities without official approval; 6. the alleged current "reformed" activities of WHINSEC; and 7. the policies of other friendly nations, are all irrelevant to the documented terrorist actions in the past. Think about it, we are talking about history not how good or bad we think we feel about current policy or about the context of other policies. Having said that, I am all for including opposing views and if there are pertinent criticims of the article I for one would be all ears.--NYCJosh 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You give no sources for your claims, while I have done that. Obviously we should discuss arguments for and against, as per Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting theory. Relative importance is difficult to determine.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I will work on the last points.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have tried to make them clearer.Ultramarine 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I cite sources, you not regarding these opposing views. What this page is saddled with is being a dumping ground original research project for anonynomous Wikipedia editors who personally think that something is "state terrorism" regardless if such an allegation has been made or not by a reliable source. The opposing views material above deals with the US, as can be seen in the points and sources.Ultramarine 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing sources is not enough.  The material must be relevant to the page.  Yours is not.  Stone put to sky 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is as discussed above.Ultramarine 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps rewording will help, perhaps if you stated: In the case of Nicaragua vs. XYZ it is often argued that the perpetrators were acting without direct orders. Often soldiers can commit crimes without the sanctioning of their government ... [1][2][3] etc. Then if there is direct relevance as it seems to be the issue here, it is shown clearly. --SixOfDiamonds 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see if I can make it clearer.Ultramarine 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I will follow policy. See also WP:SOAP.However, I do am considering starting to delete all the sections, or at least moving them to talk for discussion, not containing soucrces stating that these acts are state terrorism.Ultramarine 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should absolutely do so, I will support you 100%. - Merzbow 07:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if this article survives based on the very weak arguments to keep it that have shown on on its latest Afd, this article should be reduced to about one paragraph if that.--MONGO 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean the weak arguments to delete, if you want to call them arguments at all. This article actually needs expansion to about twice its size. And, I propse a second article, one based only on allegations, which would be much, much larger (and in my view more complete). That way, we can keep this one relatively small, as it is now.Giovanni33 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "Opposing views" by Ultramarine 

message: What relevance do those have other than to push a pov? One is a prominent leftist, another an openly anti-American leader, and the last a leader of a country were anti-American sentiment runs extremely strong. At best this is extremely unbalanced and pushes a clear viewpoint. --MichaelLinnear 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Should be removed.Ultramarine 06:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So you refuse to allow counter-criticisms as per the section above, but insist on including inflammatory quotes? Ultramarine 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:POV forking. One sided bashing is not allowed. Since the article has stataments like that the SOA "is a terrorist training ground", opposite views must also be included.Ultramarine 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: This is a news and commentary site that collates work from professional writers, scholars, and activists.  It is published in two languages, and has regular readership in Africa, Western Europe, and North America.   It publishes independent news reports for which it has won recognition from several notable awards and standards organizations.  Obviously, there is nothing wrong with material from this website.  Stone put to sky 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited by 9/11 alternative theorist Michel Chossudovsky which has also written the article you give as a source for supposed US "state terrorism" While Chossudovsky in this article, as elsewhere, talks about 9/11, he does not accuse the US of terrorism, as far as I can see.Ultramarine 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.". This is not a newspaper, it's a non-notable political webzine. - Merzbow 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Research

message: "US Government funding and training of of Guatemalan 'Death Squads'"
Source number one is to unspecific. Which of these 32 documents support the allegation? Many speak of the opposite. The second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleae use proper Indentation when replying. Regarding source one, again, which of these 32 documents support your claim? Many speak of the oppposite, mentioning US criticisms and strained relations due to human rights violations in Guatemala. Again, the second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, regarding source one, which of these 32 support your claim? I can find no one that includes training or funding death squads. Regarding the second, giving some training to one man who is alleged (not convicted) to have done human rights violations is not evidence for general support and training of death squads.Ultramarine 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No it won't. - Merzbow 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guatemala 1 

message: How do you people have time to get any work done? 
The article could use a few graphic descriptions of violence like the rape scene. It is important to convey that this is not just some abstract issue about whether the acts of an abstract entity like a nation-state called the U.S. may be described under the rubric of "terrorism" but it is a very real issue with very real victims and consequences. It should never be just a dry recitation of places, dates and numbers of victims.--NYCJosh 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the purpose is conversely not to inflame the reader with endless graphic descriptions of torture porn that do not advance the discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not an activist site. Long quotes are summarized, with few exceptions. - Merzbow 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't claim to be an expert in encyclopedias or anything, but although it's a trend in history books, I doubt very much that bottom-up history (if I understand what that phrase means) is the trend in encyclopedias. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should portray items in an objective (i.e., "abstract"), rather than a personal, manner.
I agree that in an enclyclopedia bottom-up history should dominate in terms of prominence over succint dry accounts (if you look at my additions to this article, you'll note that they're just about all in the latter category). But there is an important place for the former for the reasons given. --NYCJosh 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: An encyclopedia is not for the purposes of containing verbatim narratives by victims recounting their experiences at excruciating length. See WP:ISNOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is enough to say that someone was tortured, letting them go on and on about rats and dead bodies is transparently geared to inflame the reader while providing no relevant information to the discussion at hand. The article is not about the methods of torture, it is about allegations of state terrorism. - Merzbow 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual accounts of terror 

message: "estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s." The OR implication is that the US is responsible for all of these deaths when the in fact the US had cut of military aid during much of this period.Ultramarine 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use indentation. Then we should obviously mention that the US is not responsible for all these deaths. What is the source for that CIA aid continued during this whole period?Ultramarine 09:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Does not state that. Only evidence presented has been limited training and some material assistance to some of the persons involved. The US did not support the regime politically for long periods.Ultramarine 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources you speak shows that the US cut off military support for long periods, helped stop a coup in 1993, and that the CIA, especially in more recent times, tried to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your source? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . So the US cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the civil war.Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US government investigating itself, and finding itself to be blameless? Would you accept such a report from any other government at face value? If Iran investigated itself and found that it didn't support Hamas, would you consider that the final word on the matter? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously we must include the above material for NPOV.Ultramarine 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the article does not mention the CIA attempt to lessen the human rights violations and the help with stopping coups.Ultramarine 11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should include it, not remove anything to make a point, but add a criticism section stating the US point of view per WP:NPOV. If you find sources stating the opposite, those should be included, so why not just add a criticism section to each area? --SixOfDiamonds 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 1996 President’s Intelligence Oversight Board report, the CIA funded D2 continuously from 1965 to 1993 ($3.5 Million/year). The report found that Terry Ward (CIA Latin America Chief) "was derelict in his Constitutional duty to inform Congress of Guatemalan human rights abuses, that he failed to followup the CIA’s commitment to investigate the Honduran military’s death squad, that he looked the other way when the Nicaraguan contras tortured their prisoners". The report stated "in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets -- and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware". As a result of this report the CIA dropped over 1,000 agents " for lack of productivity, criminality or human rights abuses". The CIA may not have performed the torture themselves but according to U.S. Government documents they did have CIA polygraph experts present during interrogations where prisoners were tortured.CIA attempts to lessen the human rights violations were rather inadequate. For example the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that the SOA used to train the interrogators in methods of torture was modified. The sentence "we want to make you aware of them and the proper way to use them (torture techniques)" was modified by putting a line through the phrase “the proper way to use them” and writing above it “so that you may avoid them.” Not the most efficient way to prevent torture. With so much U.S. government paperwork detailing the torture and funding available it amazes me that this is disputed. Wayne 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of unsourced claims here. Regardless, the opposing views presented by me above should also be included.Ultramarine 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot find your statements in the Intelligence Oversight Board report here: .Ultramarine 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unsourced claims are not interesting. There are some somewhat similar statements in the acutal report, but very different in crucial aspects, like that the level of aid declined during this period. Many of the quotes seems to be misquotations. Regardless, the opposing views presented in my quotes above should be included.Ultramarine 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For more general opposing views, see the section on Opposing views above.Ultramarine 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, unsourced claims are not interesing and the opposing views should be included.Ultramarine 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guatemala 3 

message: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."
Why is this graphic description of this particular human rights violation included. The ICJ stated that the US did not have sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for their human rights violations.Ultramarine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I quote from the voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America". They also stated, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."Ultramarine 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no such counter-argument has been presented. The court made no judgement regarding whether HRV had occured because the US was not imputable for possible such violations.Ultramarine 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The US was found guilty mainly for actions done directly by US personnel, such as laying mines. There is very little regarding the Contras in the final voted on verdict.Ultramarine 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it did not. Yes, the US supported the Contas, but there is very little mention of this in the voted on statements. The support of the Contras was illegal due to the obligation not to interfere in another state. The more serious statements, such as use of force, refered to actions done directly by US personnel. As per human rights violations by the Contras, see above. No reason to have the graphic quote.Ultramarine 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have already quoted the ICJ ruling itself. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I will note further accusations of vandalism as violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.Ultramarine 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are a vandal, but you are clearly not assuming good faith on behalf of the editors you disagree with. We are all part time editors here. It is unreasonable to propose to delete material because page numbers are lacking. It is also unreasonable to demand instant gratification for your demands. Especially on an article that you have not contributed to. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time." From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 1

message: We should add regarding the "Torture manuals" that the CIA claims that they were intended to "moderate" activities already being done.Ultramarine 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the CIA claims. As per NPOV, views from both sides should be included.Ultramarine 11:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of this article is claims, such as  those by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am neutral on this, but the opposing views should also be presented.Ultramarine 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we can cite Cuba's claims, we can also cite those of the opposing side. NPOV require the inclusion of the views of both sides.Ultramarine 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again read Wikipedia:POV forking. Attempts to violate NPOV is not allowed, articles must include the views of both sides. The article criticzes the US for the manuals, then the counter-view shold also be included.Ultramarine 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the sources here do not mention "state terrorism". No double standard please.Ultramarine 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 2 

message: "Operation Ajax, which involved organised riots and the training of right-wing terrorist groups" None of the given sources mention "terrorist" groups.Ultramarine 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe ref# 100 does. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Page numbers must be provided for books in order to be verifiable.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source is given, a date missing from an article doesnt call for its removal, it calls for others to attempt to provide the information. I will have to hit the library it seems this weekend and waste valuable time due to these petty claims. I hope you then cease the arguing here over minors since you just WP:DONTLIKEIT in relation to the topic. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will allow some time before removing time.Ultramarine 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you allow some time for you to look it up yourself, instead of just wanting to delete? Unless you have some reason to believe that the source is not accurate I dont understand your tact in approaching it the way you are. It should be one of Fix, dont Delete. Only delete when its not fixable. Yes?Giovanni33 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is those who make a claim that have the responsibility to provide a verifiable source.Ultramarine 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If Ultramarine does look it up and can't find it, what then? Will you accept his word, or will you then look it up? I'm just curious, because if you wouldn't be willing to accept his word (assuming he couldn't find it, which is honestly possible even if it is in the book), then it doesn't sound to me that you're genuinely interested in his contributions. (For the record, I doubt Ultramarine and I have the same general POV here. I just appreciate a NPOV. Also, I'm new here, so please forgive me if I go astray somewhere.) Benhocking 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he can't veritfy it for whatever reason, and he believe it does not exist or is false, then thats one thing. But if he just says its not referenced, and deletes, without any intention or attempt to fix what may be an easily fixable problem, then thats another thing. I hope you see the difference between the two. And, yes, I always assume good faith, but that doesn't mean I won't try to see if I can't fix it, when he finds himeself unable to. I don't know why you say I don't sound like Im genuinely interested in his contributions. Can you please explain that statement? I'm interested in helping this article and am interested in everyones contributions--that is why I'm here talking to him.Giovanni33 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one thing, I have no idea how big that book is. If the book is over a hundred pages, then it seems unreasonable to ask someone to look for it who isn't even sure it's there. On the other hand, someone already found it, so it seems to make most sense for that someone to say where they found it. It's hard enough to find something in a large book if you've already seen it once before. It's much, much harder to find something in a medium-to-large book if not only have you never seen it before, you've never even read the book! Obviously, Ultramarine is expressing a certain skepticism. Would you go looking through a book for something you weren't sure was even in there, instead of asking someone who's already found it to point you to which page it was on? I'm arguing this purely on general principles and not because of the subject matter at hand. If you look at other things I've edited, you'll notice that I'm mainly interested in academic issues. Benhocking 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have a problem with skepticism, asking for the page number of the person citing, it, and not doing it yourself. I do have a problem with simply deleting it, without any effort made to fix it, directly or indirectly by asking the that person who might know, cite it. All I am saying is that the emphasis should be on fixing things, instead of deleting as a fix--unless thre is good reason to believe it can't be fixed.Giovanni33 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking for a better citation right here and now.Ultramarine 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad. Just don't delete it, because I'm assuming its valid and the better citation will be provided in due time.Giovanni33 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Limited time before deletion. We want an accurate encyclopedia.Ultramarine 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease barking orders, you are in no position to order anyone around. --SixOfDiamonds 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time."Ultramarine 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that the material is poorly sourced.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only supposed source mentioning "terrorist" groups is a book without page numbers. From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is clearly not the case. There are over a hundred sources. Most are articles and don't require page numbers. Most of the cited books have page numbers. We are really only talking about a minority of the numerous sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the specific claim regarding Operation Ajax, as per my first edit in this section.Ultramarine 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 2 

message: "an attempted coup in France (1961)" Seems to refer to some very obscure conpiracy theory. The given source is " Pierre Abramovici and Gabriel Périès, La Grande Manipulation, éd. Hachette, 2006" What is this? A book? Then page numbers would be required. Regardless, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unsourced personal claims are not a reliable source in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to trust his word, you could try reading the sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is those who make claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are given. You refuse to read them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, in order to verifiably, page numbers must be provided for books. This has been confirmed in arbitration cases. Regardless, again, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers can be added to those few references which lack them. However, I advise you to also actually read the sources. It will do you good and you will be able to argue with us more effectively. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless done, this source is unverifiable. Those who make the claims must provide the sources. I repeat, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are given. The lack of page numbers on some references is a minor issue which can be corrected in time. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Please help out by adding some page numbers yourself. Thank you. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claimed source is currently unverifiable. Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article. It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem unwilling to help, even in theory. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, after reading over it, it seems you are overly stating the point. Not sure what lead you to that case, but it was regarding someone adding false information or general sources, not sources that actually contain the items. I believe this is bordering on Wikilawyering. Nonetheless I will attempt to find some page numbers for you. --SixOfDiamonds 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Europe 1 

message: "In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro."
No involvement by the CANF and the US, so should be removed. Should if anything be cited as evidence againt state terrorism, since the it was the US who stopped the assassintion.Ultramarine 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granma is not a reliable source. None of the other sources claims that US government was involved. The plot was stopped in US territory.Ultramarine 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? How is the official newspaper of a nation not a reliable source? --SixOfDiamonds 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A state-controlled censored newspaper is not reliable.Ultramarine 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your belief they are censored is not valid. Further a state controlled document is then also not valid. So are you arguing that we should remove all documents from government offices? I doubt you are. Please cease attempts to brand anything Venezuelan or Cuban as not meeting WP:RS, or have the folks at WP:RS rule on that. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Reporters without borders. Documents from dictatorships are not reliable. Venezuela is not a dictatorships (yet), so is more reliable.Ultramarine 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are imposing your own POV about what is a dicatorship and what is not, and basing that POV to determine reliablity of the source? That only produced the expected bias of the filtering system it employs. And that is not NPOV. That is like me saying that reports from big corporations are not reliable because big corpoations are elitist, undemocratic institutions, or that capitalist media can not be considered reliable by WP, and only sources from socialist democracies like Cuba, can be considered reliable. Obviously, this is not valid, but is the reasoning your using here.Giovanni33 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US. However, I will agree on one pont. If this article was called "Allegations of...", we could list this as another one of Cuba's allegations of state terrorism.Ultramarine 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is a state-censored newspaper a reliable source? But again, it could maybe be included as an allegation.Ultramarine 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Repeating a claim without giving any evidence does not help your case. Again, you can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US.Ultramarine 09:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, but before throwing stones in glass houses, you should consider that the US is not an ideal place for journalism either. RsF puts the US at 53rd place, joint with Tonga and Botswana, for freedom of the press. Perhaps you should take the output of US media with a healthy pinch of salt too.  ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still in the upper third, while Cuba is 165 out of 168.Ultramarine 10:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But if say, Botswana denied state terrorism against Tonga, would you take their denials at face value, or would you treat it with a healthy skepticism?... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Botswana is one of the best functioning and succesful democracies in Africa, so I would certainly consider their newspapers to be fairly free and reliable.Ultramarine 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So no healthy skepticism then, no? You are very trusting. I live in Ireland (pos #1 ), and I'm skeptical of the Irish press. Its what keeps them honest. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All reputable human rights organizations are find Cuba's newspapers to be censored.Ultramarine 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it is or not is beside the point. Even an allegation made by a state controlled source is still an allegation. Its perhaps more notable in the fact that it is the states' official view. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Its something like "Shaw-kawn" ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have already agreed that this particular allegation is really no different than all the others by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 12:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba 1 

message: I don't think that state-sponsored coups can necessarily be labeled terrorism - unless part of their aim can reasonably be considered to be inspiring terror. Perhaps these can be moved to their own article, and have a link to that article added in the See Also section?
:Agree.Ultramarine 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. Currently above, we are working out consensus regarding the sources in contention, and progress is being made. Editors should respect this process and not force massive deletions by edit waring. Thanks for restoring the material.Giovanni33 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The good news is what you believe is irrelevant, and so is what I believe. What is relevant is if a reliable source calls a particular coup "state-sponsored terrorism". Anything else is original research. - Merzbow 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State terrorism vs. State-sponsored coups 

message: Ultramarine claims that he has improved the text, but so far as i can tell any changes are merely cosmetic and have done nothing to address the objections listed above.  Stone put to sky 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the proposed additiions here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. The main objection seem to be that the sources do not mention "state terrorism." That is a double standard since the same applies to most of the sources in this article.Ultramarine 08:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your claims are incorrect and you have not answered to my responses regarding them above. But again, let's discuss your main objection. Again, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". Ultramarine 08:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". By the way, your last section on the Philippines is so obviously a completely one-sided personal essay that that I will probably just let it stand uncorrected.Ultramarine 10:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, your so obviously biased personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments will only damage your cause. As will your claim that the whole article only have established true facts and that there is no mere allegation. No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". So no double standard please. Regarding presenting all sides, see WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking.Ultramarine 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox, 2

message: I concur with MichaelLinnear and Morton devonshire that this is the most appropriate title for this article, especially since that is what the ICJ found the U.S. government to be guilty of in the case of Nicaragua vs United States. Even so, Nicaragua later dropped their suit and claim to reparations that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. was supposed to pay the government of Nicaragua.--MONGO 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I really support this article, but I suggest the excellent written first section of Guatemala be moved to the 1950s overthrow article, since it has nothing to do with terrorism per se. 
The Philippine section is also interesting, but it is so large, maybe it deserves a seperate new article. Military aid to the Philippines is not terrorism, unless it is used for terrorist purposes. 69.152.139.102 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly enough info in the Philippine section to start a new article on the subject. Perhaps someone can do that and later when this article becomes too large, we can start to it down a bit, keeping the sections but moving a lot of the details to the article on the subject. This article needs a section on American Indians who faced terrorism by the US government. There is certainly notable observations of these occurances. Also, the KKK, and such terrorist, racist organizations, might be another one to look at, to the extent that the govt. is complicit.Giovanni33 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, and i would happily contribute to such a page.  Why don't you start it, Tbeatty?  Stone put to sky 09:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would happily assist as well, just point me toward some material and I will crack some books. Thanks Tbeatty. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a new page, just a new section.  I suggest we start with Rwanda.  The U.S. gave money to the U.N.   The U.N. is responsible for all those deaths.   Therefore U.S. = terrorism in Rwanda.  Same formula as the Philippines and Guatemala section.  We could do the same for a France secion.  U.S. trains with France, French soldiers raped and terrorized girls in an African nation they were doing peacekeeping in, therefore U.S. = terrorism.  --Tbeatty 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice we are getting somewhere, what we need now are references citing those things as terrorism attributable to the United States. If you have some books that do, or articles, even authors I will do a little leg work. Thank you much. --SixOfDiamonds 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need that?  We only need the inference of that for the Philippines and Guatemala.   There is no doubt that the Rwanda killings were terrorism.  U.N. was supposed to help.  Therefore, the United States = Terrorism in Rwanda.  This is the same synthesis as we are using in the Philippines and Guatemala sections (and many others).  --Tbeatty 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need what? sources? I do not get the question. There is a section below regarding the Cultural Terrorism I would like to get your feedback regarding. If you can rephrase your above question into a complete sentence let me know, perhaps I am not understanding why you are advocating not having any sources for your proposed articles above. --SixOfDiamonds 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guatemala and Philippine section

message: I think that the point has been made;  if EVERY editor here -- contributing and deletionist alike -- is willing to allow that first sentence to stand as-is, then i think we can reduce the number of sources on it to a more reasonable number.
I want to get that agreement in writing, on my talk page:  a clear promise from Morton Devonshire, Tom Harrison, MONGO, Ultramarine, Merzbow, and TDC -- in particular, no compromises -- that they will not attempt to delete the sentence nor will they attempt to alter it in any way without first achieving full community consensus.  
Similarly, i expect them to promise to revert attempts by anyone else to change it.  
If they are willing to abide by such a small restriction and act in accordance with their promise, then i'm perfectly happy to reduce the number of sources on it.  Otherwise, i think they should stay.  Stone put to sky 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? You don't need 21 refs for one sentence. Besides, if you knew anything about MOS, refs go at the end of a statement, not near the end. Are you deliberately trying to violate WP:POINT?--MONGO 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to group them together? Something like this[1-21]   ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in that manner. But I have grouped some of them together as an example so the list is much smaller now. → AA (talk • contribs) — 12:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, all you need is one source from Chomsky (who is not not trained in international politics) and one from another source such as 9/11 conspiracy theorist Chossudovsky, not 21. I would see if the esteemed Chavez has made any recent declarations too, him being an expert and all...that is, if he can take a time out between shutting down the various news organizations remaining in his kingdom.--MONGO 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its good to see some reason here in the midsts of a lot of insanity. I definitely agree that all anyone needs to promote their POV is a few decent references, not two dozen. When you add so many references, it only makes the argument look even stupider. But, well, at least the radicals have a nice little playground here. We know where to find them, so lets keep them corralled here and maybe they won't go elsewhere on Wikipedia and create further destruction.--Beguiled 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupider is not a word. When attempting to take an intellectual high ground, avoid using non-existent words, such as ... stupider. --74.73.16.230 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  - it's in the American Heritage Dictionary. Now who's feeling "stupider"? :) - Merzbow 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, American Heritage Dictionary. Why not quote the Urban dictionary? rofl. your response is stupider then the accusation. Write that word in a report and watch your English teacher cry. --74.73.16.230 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know, all of us who read these comments?  There's few things stupider than arguing about whether a personal attack word is actually a word or not. In discussing this we have truly been beguiled (in the sense of the third definition).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations on first sentence

message: As i've said before:  the deletionists here have been adamant about rejecting any proposals that have not originated with them, first.  What i find amazing, however, is that despite their vehement insistence upon doing things their way and only their way, to date they still are dissatisfied with the content on this page.
The simple and plain fact is that it is they who are most responsible for limiting and directing the development of content on this page.  They simply cannot come to grips with the idea that, regardless of what they try, there will remain a page on Wikipedia that presents these facts under the rubrik of State Terrorism, and predicated to the United States.
I have always understood their objections, and contrary to how they would like to portray me have offered up several compromises over the years.  All have been rejected out of hand, without discussion.  
My suggestion now is a rather radical one;  i support a name change, and i have come up with a suitably NPOV name change that should satisfy everyone here.  
It will, however, take the page in a radical new direction, and will demand a lot of work on the part of all parties.  The deletionists themselves will find, however, that should they accept my proposition they will have a free hand to introduce the sources (properly referenced and of course conforming to the standards they have laid down) and content (so long as it is relevant) they prefer.
My proposal is to change the name to State terrorism and the United States.
This page would then become a summary of other pages on wikipedia where more content could be found regarding the cases in question.  We could move the Guatemala, Philippines, and Nicaragua sections to other pages and provide brief (2-5 sentence) summaries of the content there.  Similarly, the deletionists would have a free hand to develop pages regarding the charges which the United States' levels against other nations.  
In short, we could have the "State terrorism by Cuba", "State terrorism by Syria", "State terrorism by the United States" and all other such pages all clearly referenced and tied back to this single page, which (hopefully) would not become the monstrosity it currently is.
Of course, we would need an introductory section, as well as describing the definitions used by the United States;  similarly, any charges or allegations made against the United States could be linked back here, but then that would be the same sort of arrangement as we would get by changing the name to "Allegations..." anyway.
I hope this idea interests some of you, and if it is provocative enough to spark a new direction for this impasse then i look forward to the discussion. Stone put to sky 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a superb suggestion. However, I'm a little confused by your paragraph discussing how pages would be referenced back to this page. Why would "State terrorism by Cuba" be linked back to a page titled "State terrorism and the United States"? Also, if there's still an article titled "State terrorism by the United States", I believe the argument will mainly move to that page. Benhocking 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *ahem* beat you to it. :-) I too think it is a better name.  Henrik 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Sure did!  Kewl! Stone put to sky 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So, how would the referenced article "State terrorism by the United States" be different from this article, other than also referencing back to "State terrorism and the United States"? If I understand your suggestions (and there's a decent possibility I don't), the "State terrorism and the United States" article would contain acts of state terrorism alleged by the US and attributed to others, acts of state terrorism alleged by others and attributed to the US, and possibly acts of state terrorism on US soil. Since state terrorism alleged by others and attributed to the US is what this article is about, wouldn't it all essentially get moved to "State terrorism by the United States"? Benhocking 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honest proposal for Radical Change of Direction

message: I don't think that's appropriate for this article. Also, I note that the references refer to cultural imperialism and not cultural terrorism. Cultural terrorism seems to be a completely invented term that waters down the meaning of the word terrorism. Benhocking 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the terminology in a few articles, however did not note "state terrorism" in any articles in the section. Noone seems to be advancing the idea of a form of "state terrorism" I would like to know if Tom finds any combination of terrorism and the United States to be implicit as "state terrorism." --SixOfDiamonds 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think Tom's material should stay. It is an interesting allegation and it fits with the others to a degree. It also highlights the extent to which the term 'terrorism' is stretched by all sides (both US and anti-US) to mean just about anything. Remember that computer hackers are now described, with out irony, as "cyber-terrorists" by the US government, and the UK arrests people who interrupt speeches under anti-terrorism laws. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's easy to be dismissive of cultural terrorism if you aren't one of its victims. The symbiotic relationship between the media and US government is well known, and supported by Chomsky's work. James Petras is an important scholar, and it is not appropriate to impugn his work as a watered-down fabrication. Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree. If hacking and heckling are considered terrorism, why not "cultural terrorism". ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if this is hand washing or no one wanting to get involved with a WP:POINT issue back firing. The rule of thumb is a source needs to cite "state terrorism" I was under the impression. True? False? We now accept any combination of terrorism and United States in a sentence? I am only really concerned with the Cuban aspect fo this article, however watch the slippery slope, by allowing material X you will gain Y then Z, then the complaints that 30% of the article does not follow its own rules. --SixOfDiamonds 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. Material has been rejected in the past because it lacked the phrase "State Terrorism" specifically. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's do one or the other. We can certainly maintain a reasonable page cataloging notable allegations of state terrorism, which we used to have here under American terrorism. What we should not do is maintain some kind of collaborative essay that picks and chooses what to present to avoid watering down Noam Chomsky's message. Tom Harrison Talk 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please answer the questions. Do you have any sources that cite this as "state terrorism" and do you believe that the term "state terrorism" is not actually necessary for this article, as long as the source states that the US committed or assisted in an act of terrorism. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You tell me. Are we going to remove the original research that synthesizes actions not called state terrorism in the source, into state-sponsored terrorism on this page, or not? I've told you (or told the page generally, anyway) what I think, and what policy says, but consensus seems mixed on the point. Further, I don't see how people can hold up Chomsky as authoritative when he says what they want, and ignore what he says about the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and the US government. To paraphrase Giovanni33 (or was it Stone put to sky who said it?), I've answered your question, now you answer mine. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are refusing to answer the question, then it means you are failing to defend the content. Please answer the questions asked. Thank you. Remember the burden of proof is on the one adding the content to defend it. --SixOfDiamonds 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I hate to apply common sense here, as I realize that it's not always the best diviner of truth, but I have a really hard time understanding how "cultural terrorism" inspires any terror. Could you explain that? (I'm not being facetious.) Benhocking 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be up to the source to explain, not to us. If a noted academic says it was terrorism and it was enabled by US government policy, we record that view and present it here, with all the others. Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. If a reader is unable to understand why cultural terrorism is cultural terrorism, then why reference it? If you can't explain why they consider it to be cultural terrorism, then perhaps it is not a good reference. Furthermore, according to Stone put to sky, the noted academic in question did not say it was state terrorism. (Please address all 3 points, if possible.) Benhocking 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Giovanni33 has already addressed those questions in another context above. Read carefully what he wrote. Tom Harrison Talk 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me a search phrase? Giovanni33's written a lot on this page. Benhocking 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry, you'll just have to read it all. Read-Stone-put-to-sky's too, I think he addressed these topics as well. Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to document something called "cultural terrorism" then thats fine, but it belongs on a page about that concept. This page is for state terrorism, by the US. If you have reputable source that says Cultural Terrorism is a form of State terrorism, and if this is not a fringe claim, then this article can discuss that content, but leave the details on its own article about "cultural terrorism." However, I don't find the term/concept to be a notable one. In fact, WP does't even have an article on this supposed concept, so we can see what it entails. If it even if a notable concept at all, it probably is quite distinct and different than State Terrorism. Likewise with the concept of "Cultural Imperialism." I highly suspect this is just more trolling going on. Last time Tom was claiming that the Marshall plan as imperialism should be added, and when I pointed out state terrorism was very specific type of thing, whearas economic imperialism such as the MP, was quite different, he then changed and claimed it was terrorism, but failed to cite any source. As I recall both Tom and Mongo participated in what is clearly trolling. This smells of the same.Giovanni33 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should permit some of the more stringent critics to chime in on Toms section considering we are in the midst of discussing current content and new content is being added. I would like to know what Mongo for instance thinks of this section and its validity. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure he knows better than to misuse his admin tools to give you an editing advantage. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin--not sure what gave the impression I was.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and actually read the posts you cited. Nada. So, is this just a joke? Why would you do that? Benhocking 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni33 is sometimes a bit wordy, but that's no reason to think it's a joke. I assure you, he did address your question. The upshot seems to be that synthesis is fine if it supports the thesis that the US is a sponsor of state terrorism, but even direct citation is forbidden if it somehow waters down that point. Tom Harrison Talk 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. You're making fun of people who are picking on Giovanni33 by using metasatire. Benhocking 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks, don't feed the trolls. This is trolling by defeated right-wingers. Its their last refuge. heheGiovanni33 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Where are all the liberal admins to warn Stone put to sky to not make comments like this. They have no intention of doing anything about these kinds of comments for fear of losing their fellow POV warriors.--Beguiled 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you attempt to be civil, your segregation of users by party affiliation is damaging to any prospect of creating a NPOV article here or anywhere it may be moved or renamed. If your goal here to just leave snide remarks, please leave them elsewhere so those who are here to work on the issues mention in the AfD, can actually work on them. --74.73.16.230 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Terrorism? 

message: This edit summary lets Giovanni33 portray himself in a favorable light, but it is inaccurate: "rv to last by Tom Harrision?" That is an impressive level of indentation above though. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. It not meant to cast me in any light, its only stated to be accurate. See:  I did revert to the last good version, which just happened to be yours. Although I would restore the Philippines sections, I realize that discussion on that still needs to take place to address concerns. But why do you say my edit summary was not accurate? And, how is reverting to you cast me in a good light? Ok, I see reverted to your version, Tom, right before your last version, which has a minor difference (from an edit you did not make). So your point is true, but very trivial, and I still don't know your reasoning for this "light casting" bussiness. Giovanni33 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you did not "rv to last by Tom Harrision", contrary to what you wrote in your edit summary. You rv'd to an earlier version, suspiciously suppressing the link I added to Ferdinand Marcos. Do you not want our readers to know that the Marcos referred to in passing is in fact Ferdinand Marcos? And why do you try to bury this under the title Off Topic Discussion, and dismiss it as trivial? Is there something here you don't want people to know? Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And of course I did link Marcos:  What is it about Marcos that bothers you enough to remove links to his bio? Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it and I do not know nor care who Marcos is or is not. It was not related to the above, or at least did not appear to be. If you feel it is, please move it back and accept my apologies. --SixOfDiamonds 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You should assume good faith. There is no conspiracy here to hide anything. I have no objection to that trivial link, which you are free to add back. I only prefered the earlier version because the order of the intro was slightly different. Rv to your version is accurate. You have not answered the question about your claim that it somehow casts me in a more positive light? Care to explain that one?. And this move is correct, since this is a completely different topic of discussion that is a bit off topic. Just fix the minor thing, instead of making all kinds of strange accusations, making it a bigger deal than it is.Giovanni33 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off Topic Discussions

message: Still no sources for that operation Ajax involved terrorist groups. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 2 - Still no sources 

message: Still no page number. Objections to removal, and if so, why? Ultramarine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have access to a public library or a bookshop? If so, why not update the reference yourself? --John 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS"Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."Ultramarine 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does. Of course, you might want to make the encyclopedia article a bit better by adding the page number, or were you trying to make a WP:POINT? --John 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have to buy a book and read though hundreds of pages looking for something I do not believe to be there. That is the responsibility of the person making the claim.Ultramarine 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has never been what you "have to do," is alwasy been one of why don't you do it? Thus, quoting policy doesn't address the question. Why do you think it does not exist? Do you have a good reason? I think its valid to assume its authentic, and thus, its better to do a little reasearch and look it up to see if you can find the page number, instead of just delete the whole thing--if your interest was what was best for WP. I know its easier to just delete, but doing what is easiest is not why we are here. I think this is the point raised by John, and I've made this same point to you before.Giovanni33 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I do not have to spend money or boring time reading hundreds of pages. That is the responsiblity of the person making the claim, as per Wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute Wikpedia polcy, there are other places for that.Ultramarine 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have access to a public library or a bookshop? If so, why not update the reference yourself? LOL because Ultramarine, MONGO, TDC, Tom Harrison, JungleCat, Morton, and Tbeatty will not stop until only wikipedia has only their own exclusive POV. All of these users simply want this article to disappear, since they can't make it disappear by an AfD they will do it section by section. At least Ultramarine adds something to the article, I can't recall any of these other editors ever adding any source to this article.216.60.70.61 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Europe 1 - Still no sources 

message: The graphic rape and torture scenes are inflammatory and only intended to evoke an emotinal response. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for these acts. Since objections has been raised that "Soviet Bloc police states" is POV language, then these long paragraphs should definitely be removed.Ultramarine 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this can definitely be trimmed down. I also think this could be reworked a bit, as it strays somewhat off topic. The point of all of this should be to illustrate the horrific nature of the actions of the Guatemalan armed forces. It does not assert anything about US complicity (that happens elsewhere), but I think it is useful to demonstrate how nasty the Guatemalan military was as a companion argument to the fact that the US was supporting them. Perhaps this can be boiled down to one paragraph though.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that the military was responsible. Even if it was, what does this has to do with the US? Should we have graphic descriptions of rapes by, say, Italian soldiers since they are members of NATO.Ultramarine 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also find it a little over-the-top; if the Holocaust article can manage without this sort of graphical description, maybe this one can too. --John 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the purpose of gratuitous and endless graphical descriptions of rape and torture can only be to inflame the reader. - Merzbow 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV language 

message: Why are we including allegations when the title does not mention this? Like from Cuba's government and state censored press.Ultramarine 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize that the more section you make, the more it looks like you are not working in good faith here. You know why the article is under the current title, you know why the content meets the requirements of "allegations" and not "super facts," why are we gonig in circles with this? --SixOfDiamonds 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not know why the article is under the current title. The long poll while the article was protected supported changing the title. Regardless, claims by Cuba's dictatorship is just that, claims or allegations, not evidence.Ultramarine 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people have admitted it, do you even read the section. Both Posada and his friend have long admitted their actions. Posada even later implicated the rest of CANF. The reason the case was thrown out regarding La Esperanza was because they admitted it. Are you reading the sections and sources you are complaining about. --SixOfDiamonds 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posada has never admitted bombing the plane. He may have admitted other actions, but then taken it backA. Lots of people boast of things they have not done. Source if claiming more, please. Even if Posada had admitted everything he is accused of, this does not prove that the US is responsible.Ultramarine 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have sources of him saying he did it. The case didn't find him not guilty, it found prosecutorial misconduct. Here is another source if you like, but you may want to bark up another tree.  --SixOfDiamonds 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He admitted one bombing, not the plane bombing, and took it back. Again, lots of people boast.  Even if Posada had admitted everything he is accused of, and he may well be, this does not prove that the US is responsible.Ultramarine 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really does not matter, since a court found him guilty we report on Wikipedia that he is guilty. --SixOfDiamonds 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, he being guilty of one crime does not prove him guilty of everything he is accused of, even though he may be. More importantly, this is not evidence of US responsibility.Ultramarine 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you admitted the fault of your argument, as I stated once the CIA admitted they knew it was coming, that Posada was at the meetings that planned it and that he had intelligence on it in his house ... Anyway ...A CIA asset blowing up a plane ... Hey we are just here to report the stuff WP:RS state. Cuba states the US committed acts of State Terrorism. The end. --SixOfDiamonds 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posasa was not a CIA asset at the time. CIA had heard rumors, no specific details.Ultramarine 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever this is off topic. Posada + US = accused of State Terrorism by WP:RS sources. That concludes the argument. -SixOfDiamonds 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to my initial point. Allegations of state terrorism by the US, nothing proved.Ultramarine 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a poll on this just this week. Can you at least wait a week before rehashing the same arguments. Patience is a virtue, restarting debates until you get the desired result is not how it works. --SixOfDiamonds 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS the government admitted Posada had contacts with the CIA, he just was not an agent. They also heard more then rumors, they heard him say "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner." --SixOfDiamonds 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source please, Posada was not a US asset at the time. A man like Posada probably makes lots of boasts. A poll in Wikipedia is not evidence of US guilt. It can be used to decide a title. Assuming that the article should have this title and not include "Allegations of...", then the article should not contain dubious allegations.Ultramarine 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Please do your own research from this point forward. I am done entertaining your questions of why, without even reading the article you are complaining about. Seems the CIA disagree's with you. So did Nightline btw. --SixOfDiamonds 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered below.Ultramarine 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have looked at the date for CIA document regarding Posada making his boast, and it was after the bombing, not the before, so the US did no learn of the boast until after the bombing had taken place.Ultramarine 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have also looked at your linked document: "CIA documents posted below reveal that he was terminated as an asset in July 1967, but then reinstated four months later and apparently remained an asset until 1974. The documents also show that he remained in contact with the Agency until June 1976, only three months before the plane bombing." Not an asset at the time.Ultramarine 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No read the documents, says amicably let go, then re-established 4 months later. There is no discharge, you are not even reading the CIA documents. The last document the CIA released regarding him was 3 months before the bombing, hence the statement he was still in contact. They state the situation themselves. Furthermore Posada was reported in the CIA documents as stating "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner" in September, its not after the bombing, what are you talking about? It says it in the source, including in the CIA documents. Do not ask for sources if you are not going to read them. I am going to ask an outside admin soon to take a look at your participation here. I am starting to lose good faith in your questions. Now that you are proven wrong, I hope you end this game. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will repeat what I just cited.  "CIA documents posted below reveal that he was terminated as an asset in July 1967, but then reinstated four months later and apparently remained an asset until 1974. The documents also show that he remained in contact with the Agency until June 1976, only three months before the plane bombing." Stopped being an asset in 1974. An occasional contact could be anything, like meeting him on the street and talking. Yes, Posada boasted before the bombing, but the CIA learned of the boast only after the bombing. Look at the date of the document.Ultramarine 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The document states: "He was amicably terminated in July 1967. But contact was re-established in October 1967. --SixOfDiamonds 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bombing was in 1976.Ultramarine 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ... --SixOfDiamonds 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your source states he stopped being an asset in 1974..Ultramarine 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure they all had tea. Now if only we had a source stating it was an act of state terrorism by the US to meet the requirements of WP:RS ... By George I believe we do. Thank you for going in circles, but it seems it meets WP:RS. IT also says he was re-established. Sorry I get asset could mean they used him as a financial write off, possibly claiming he was their child. --SixOfDiamonds 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have not given such a source stating he was an asset at the bombing. Maybe after the bombing, but not at the time of it.Ultramarine 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question. If we changed the title, we could maybe include Cuba's allegations.Ultramarine 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know, either title may work for me. Would have to see how it impacts the article. Do you have any feedback on how you think it would affect certain sections etc. --SixOfDiamonds 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry but no removals without consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why have opposing views material been removed material without consensus?Ultramarine 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't be an additions without consensus on this article while its undergoing such a strong review. -SixOfDiamonds 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you agree we should remove the Philippines section?Ultramarine 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I agree on is if you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth I will seek admin review of your participation here. Unfortunately from this point forward I no longer have good faith in your motives here. I gave you more then enough opportunity, attempted to find sources for you, answered questions and provided sources. WP:AGF does not involve being dumb or blind, or so I keep reading. Hence I will ignore your comments, questions regarding items already in the article, and continue to critique recommended rewordings and work with others such as Tom Harrison on improving sections of the article as necessary. Good day. --SixOfDiamonds 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unfortunate that you do not want to resolve issues by discussing them.Ultramarine 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is unfortunate that you do not read the sources in the article or the content before complaining about it. --SixOfDiamonds 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? I have read through many of the sources in the article and made numerous corrections of factual errors before you started editing this article.Ultramarine 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes "I have looked at the date for CIA document regarding Posada making his boast, and it was after the bombing, not the before, so the US did no learn of the boast until after the bombing had taken place. Ultramarine 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? You stated that the CIA knew of the boast, therefore I read through the source, and made the above statement.Ultramarine 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the fact that you did not recognize that your statement was incorrect leads me to believe you did not "read the source," you may have browsed it, looked for a date or skimmed through it, but clearly did not read it if you made that statement. Again, until I see something different, such as you working with others instead of against them, I will simply work with those I feel are best representing the spirit of Wikipedia. --SixOfDiamonds 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the supposed statement by me that was incorrect?Ultramarine 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another very good questions. Either one has been ignored recently by those alleging US state terrorism. Ultramarine 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question ... We should wait and see if an answer develops on consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it does not?Ultramarine 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be tragic as Wikipedia is all about developing a consensus. But why bother with "what if" when I am sure everyones willingness to improve this article will surely lead to a consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's start building that consensus. Do you want 'no removals without consensus' or 'no additions without consensus', and why? Tom Harrison Talk 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)."Ultramarine 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should have a firm rule other than major changes (either deletions or additions) should be discussed on the talk page first. If consensus does not develop (since that rarely seems to happen here) the change can be made, but a good faith effort should be made to at least discuss changes of any sort before making them. As such, I would welcome comments on new material I'm proposing for the Guatemala section (see "Guatemala 1 - Still no sources" above, first the discussion between Ultramarine and myself and then my proposed addition).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered Guatemala above.Ultramarine 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article and allegations in contents