Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 2

message: Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have a page for things describes as acts of terrorism by the US - American terrorism. I've redirected the pages there. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged, not redirected as content from this article will be lost RaveenS 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What needs to be done to improve it? Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, American Terrorism is a article on definition, this is an article on acts, hence I have changed my view about merge. It should be keepRaveenS
*Merge  Karwynn (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said in AfD, stubbify, keep on the AfD, drop it to RS, I think merge into the other article, and then rename the other article. American terrorism implies acts against the US, as opposed to acts considered as terrorism acts by Americans by foreign parties. rootology (T) 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AT article deters discussion of actual events and history b/c unless someone prominent has labeled the act "terrorism" it cannot be mentioned. This page by contrast actually informs about the unseemly past. However, merging some content from the AT article into THIS article would be a good idea. --NYCJosh 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think NYCJosh's view above nicely summarises my concerns. He wants a platform where he can tell the Truth, and finds that the requirements for citation make that harder. Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What article do you think is a mess? Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for creation

message: I'd like to see a clarification of the word "many" in the sentence "However, many researchers have commented that the true aim was often to increase the power and control of the United States over Europe." Is there a list somewhere of these "many" researchers? Otherwise I can only assume the statement is speculative. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Ganser lists a number of researchers in his book. I don't know what your threshold for 'many' is but besides Dr. Ganser, here are some more articles saying much the same:  , and here is the US government admitting the existance of Gladio but denying it was involved in terrorism in Greece  Self-Described Seabhcán 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many researchers? 

message: I removed the following:
The United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate the Cuban head of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, proposed the assassination of Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3-14, (archive).
In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passangers. The US claimed the act it to be an error. However, following the incident, the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons and the air-warfare co-ordinator won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $63m componsation.
Interesting paragraphs, but it isn't terrorism per se, when in the first case it is an assassination attempt, and in the second case, the US claimed that it was an accident. Travb (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed these paragraphs

message: As far as I can tell, the cited references for this section do not mention terrorism.  --JWSchmidt 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran vs. United States

message: defdefensa.org: Secret Warfare: From Gladio to 9/11 
Signed: Travb (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed broken link

message: I removed this blog as per suggestion from Tom. Signed: Travb (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed blog

message: I removed the Frisk story above. 
The reason I re-removed the above, is just as Sheldon Rampton stated, is that Frisk interviewed one man: "a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source"" and reported his stories.  These are third hand stories at best: an Iraqi tells this security source, and then this security source tells Frisk.  This is rumors and gossip.  Not terribly convincing.
I also removed this, from the "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" :
:In June 2006, Fisk editorialized that the Haditha killings might be "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. (archive) 
"The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" is Frisk's opinion, and pure conjecture: "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."  
There are plenty of excellent examples of American terrorism.  We have only grazed the surface.  These two articles only weaken this article as a whole.  Currently in this article we have reports from the NYT, the Moscow Times, the National Archives, and the International Court of Justice, next to Frisk's third hand accounts of something that might have happened, and pure speculation and conjecture.  
I agree with Frisk on most things, but these two articles are not really very factually strong, and should be kept out of the article.  Better to place them on the Frisk page.Travb (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Frisk again

message: AfD five days ends in < 10 minutes for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Thanks for virtually everyone being/trying to be civil. rootology (T) 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You spoke to soon, my patience with these POV warriors ran out last night.Travb (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Morton devonshire 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, time's about up. 

message: Now that the AfD is over, I merged the article American terrorism as per the discussion above.  Now we have everything in one place, and can now work on building this article better. Travb (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: I removed the following, since it is already in the article:
*In 1982, the U.S. State Department called the activities of the Contras, who were armed and financed by the United States, "terrorist activities". The United States were found guilty of unlawful use of force by the International Court of Justice (Nicaragua v. United States; Sandanista; Iran-Contra Affair).
signed: Travb (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: *Katrina and the new global terrorism
*Tuvalu and Global Warming
*Jihad Abu Az Zamman - The Orator is Naked
*Saudi march for Hezbollah draws thousands
*Yogyakarta students demand UN stop Israel Aggression
*Civilians die in U.S. attack IRAQI FORCES KILL SEVERAL INSURGENTS IN SEPARATE ACTION
*Our Terrorism, and Theirs Liberal apologetics for American atrocities
*The Faith of George W. Bush: Christian Supremacy, American Imperialism and Global Disaster
*Anger over Iraq war spills onto the streets
*“Insurgents” Hermeneutics Are Not a Substitute for Clarity!
*For God's sake, someone's got to do something
*The Killing Fields
*AIDS is Terrorism
*ECONOMIC TERRORISM 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs).
Hey Tom, I about erased this, mistakenly thinking it is as a link farm.  Any reason to include these links? Travb (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links on talk pages have rel="nofollow". Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom I look forward to seeing how you incorporate these sites into the article, please see: Defining terrorism above, I think your links have emphasized the importance of all of us deciding on a consensus on what should be in the article, and which shouldn't be.  Terrorism is an overly vague term. Travb (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a bunch of random volunteer encyclopedia editors get to pick and choose links to advance a position. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tom is trying to demostrate that that almost anyone that has a different view than the official U.S. Government view, particularly about actions the U.S. is involved in, might label American actions as terroristic. The working UN definition is pretty good at delineating what truly does constitute terrorism...namely, a peacetime equivalent to a war crime...I suppose the article would be best if we were to try and find evidence that the U.S. has therefore committed war crimes during peacetime.--MONGO 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: Links on talk pages have rel="nofollow". Really Tom? Do you know were this is stated?  I didn't know that.  RE: I think Tom is trying to demostrate that that.... the term "terrorism" is really problemic, as I have mentioned here, that is why I think we need to Define terrorism as I requested above, what actions should and should not be included?Travb (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my browser I choose View, then Page source. Ctrl-u is the shortcut. Your browser may be different. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom for the really valuable information, i really appreciate it.  Best wishes. Travb (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

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: Shouldn't this page be "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"? Any other page only has "United States" as its title, not "United States of America". Iolakana|T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I really appreciate how everyone backs up every word of what you say on this page.  But for the love of God don't add footnotes in the middle of a sentence.  Only in rare, very rare cases should this be done.  Add the footnotes at the end of the statment which is being quoted.  
I am REALLY tired of having to fix these ref tags.  
In addition the footnote should be after the punctation, not before.  Thank you! 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote style on this page is driving me crazy

message: Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS.  See   You should remove those sources.  Thanks.  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree to not fight over their inclusion if a couple of other people agree (no offense, but everyone is pushing their own POV for better or worse... I just want NPOV, and these have been added/removed ad nauseum by 'extremists' on both sides). rootology (T) 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're committed to discussing a controversial issue properly, I agree that use of sources which tend to be POV by nature should be kept to a minimum. Ideally, this article needs peer review and much contribution from wikipedians who don't hold allegiance to the U.S. I see dozens of adverbs in this article used specifically to couch accusations in the most U.S.-positive light. BusterD 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: RS doesn't say we can't use these sources it says we should cross-check them with other sources to make sure they aren't making bogus claims. As we aren't relying on those sources alone, in my opinion I think its ok. But I won't argue the point. Remove them if it makes you happy. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indymedia is a collection of subsites, their editorial oversight is unknown and hence they fail WP:RS. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org fail WP:RS

message: Giving the already absurd level of content fighting, I move that all deletions or additions to the article contested even once be justified by the "other side" here on the Talk page. If not, this is going to end up sooner rather than later at ArbCom. I think this would be fair--as TravB said above he's nuked whole chunks of the article and no one has put them back in yet, while wholesale uncommented likewise nuking by others keeps getting undone. The allegations were made, were documented, and were notable, so the article will remain: lets just get it to a NPOV middle ground. I'll remind everyon again that the only POV that matters is NPOV. Anyone's left or right wingism will be left at the door, and abusing based on either side will be met with eventual sanctions by the community. Just sayin'. rootology (T) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd in fact say that any non-grammatical, spelling or minor rewording related change should be explained on the talk page when it is done. This way, the reasoning is right here, and no assumptions can be easily made. LinaMishima 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot agree to that. The burden is on the person who wants to include the material to cite it to a verifiable, reliable source. There is no reason to go at this like we're killing snakes. We have no deadline. We can all edit, modify, and re-edit at a reasonable pace like adults. Sections can be spun off to other pages, and other pages can be merged in here. There's no need for drama, or special rules. This is really just business as usual. The talk page is available as needed, but there is no reason to belabor everyone's attention with long impassioned screeds. Blogger is free. Tom Harrison Talk 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all Rootology is attempting to do is stop revert wars.  We all have a vision of how this wikipage should look.  Wikipedia is built on consesus.  As I have argued with Morton, my "nuked whole chunks of the article (which) no one has put them back in yet" is because I explained in detail  why  I deleted these sections.  Whereas others have started revert wars, whose edits last less than 2 minutes.  Who is the more effective POV warrior/diplomat?  Someone whose edits last days, even weeks, or someone whose edits last a grand total of 10 minutes before being deleted?  I am trying to teach my POV opposites how to effectively push there own POV, but no one seems to be listening. Travb (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going forward... concensus 

message: Due to the many reverts, I think that all of us should abide by the rule that we don't delete any sentence or source without alerting others on the talk page when we do it, and explaining the reason why.  This will (hopefully) avoid revert wars. 
Even Morton was able to convince me that what he was trying to do was rational, by explaining what he was doing and why he was doing it. As shown  here.   Travb (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Proposed] Guidelines on this wikipage

message: I removed the following sentence: 
*It is unsurprisingly primarily used by opponents of the American government.
This is: 
# unsourced, 
# unencyclopedic ("unsurprisingly"), 
# a broad generalization,
# and covered in Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Criticism_of_the_term
Signed: Travb (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed

message: See here. I agree with this. When I asked Tom for the reasoning behind this, he said to see above I believe, but I saw no policy-based reason for this on the area mentioned. Can anyone cite any rule on Wikipedia that says in some cases we'll cite the name of the author, and in others the source itself (which is the New York Times in this case)? My gut tells me that the reasoning is to make the statement have less authority as read. 
This reference is similar: "Clapp, Rodney (September 1 2002). "When Tulsa Burned A forgotten episode in American terrorism". Christianity Today." The current passage says, "Author Rodney Clapp has described". Why not Christianity Today? I do not see similar notation of author rather than source on other articles. rootology (T) 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYCJosh, last edit on journalists 

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.
*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.
*Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.
*Tolerance of lynching - I took this out because it isn't STT even if it is true.
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.
Furthermore, the section dealing with Gladio starts out by saying that it was a NATO operation and the USSD denies any terrorism took place. So, it isn't a US operation and thus doesn't belong here but under another article dealing with NATO.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will discuss this later, I am troubled that it appears you took out Nicaragua vs. US, this is the best example of state terrorism in the whole article. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what is state terrorism and what did the US do that was ST in Nicaragua?--Kalsermar 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalsermer, you initiated the AfD, having lost the AfD, you seem to now want to delete the article, section by section.  You have added nothing three words to this article.  Not one word that I am aware of. I will waste my time explaining why everyone of these acts are terrorism.  I know my explanation will not be satisfactory to you, because you will only be satisfied when this article ceases to exist, but I will do it anyway. Again, the idea of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, all I see you doing is attempting to destroy everyone else's hard work.  You have added nothing three words to this article. Travb (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Travb, I have not "lost" the AfD as you state it nor am I required to add to this article in order to delete sections of it that are not to be included in my opinion. Whether you will "waste" your time explaining is neither here nor there, this is not your article. What you know your explanations will do to me is totally irrelevant and I resent the implication therein. What about assuming good faith? Also, when did you become so perceptive as to presume to know when I will be satisfied with this article? Last but not least, for your information, I care a great deal about Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopaedia if it can still be called that. I work every day during my limited time that I can allot to this project to better Wikipedia. If by doing that I appear to spoil the party of anti-American demagogues by pointing things out and deleting non-encyclopaedic parts of this article than so be it. All I see you do is add things to this article and denigrate anyone who dares disagree with your POV. This will not work I'm afraid.--Kalsermar 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sections: Honduras, Nicaragua vs. US, U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism 

message: * User:Kalsermar wrote: Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.
In this case the ICJ found the united states guilty of the "unlawful use of force"  The unlawful use of force means terrorism, that is part of the defintion.  Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicaragua vs. US

message: * User:Kalsermar wrote: 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.
I will look over this.  Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baghdad bombings

message: *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.
The United States supported terrorism in Hondorous. More later.Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honduras

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: Parts I believe should be removed

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: The link provided at the end of the sentence does not mention the Italian Senate, it only mentions the Left Democrat party. 
:The United States was accused of playing a large part in the campaign of anti-communist terrorism in Italy during the cold war in a report released yesterday by the Left Democrat party. 
:The explicit accusation is contained in a draft report to a parliamentary commission on terrorism. 
:The formerly communist LDP is the biggest party in Giuliano Amato's centre-left government, and the report could sour relations between Italy and the United States and unleash a storm of domestic political controversy. 
Unless there is some confirmation that the Italian Senate acted on the report, it should be present as it currently is in the article, the delusions of a out of power party whose members took millions of dollars from the KGB to form their own clandestine armies, or is that fact too inconvient for this article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed this back, to reflect your edit, good catch, and thanks for discussing changes on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This series of article has Jumped the Shark! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks TDC, although clever, this criticism adds truly nothing to the article. I would be overjoyed for you to be the first conservative editor to add one footnote to this article (I think Mondo may have already added a few though). The majority of conservatives appear to only be deleting content.Travb (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleting poor content that neither conforms to WP:V or WP:RS, but I suppose we could always refer to whatreallyhappned.com to fill this article out some. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As stated below, it is obvious what you see as "poor" content:  Anything which does not match your POV.  And it is obvious what you see as "good" content, anything which matches your POV, including Commentary magazine and David Horwitz.  Please don't use wikipedia policy to justify deleting referenced material which is deleted because it does not meet your POV.Travb (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not to pick a fight here, but Commentary magazine is on of the most influential publications around, and far too much material on Wiki is drawn from very unreputable sources (Indymedia, High Times, various weblogs etcetera), to the best of my knowledge I have not removed anything with a valid source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Italian Senate Report

message: As per: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:
:Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the  template, or tag the article by adding  or . Also in that case it may be helpful for your co-editors to leave a clarifying note on the talk page, for instance indicating which sources you already checked. You can also make the unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding  after it, until reliable sources have been provided. When using this "commenting out" technique it is usually best to leave a clarifying note on the talk page.See Help:Editing#Basic text formatting: "Invisible comments to editors only appear while editing the page. If you wish to make comments to the public, you should usually go on the talk page."
If we can all follow these suggested guidelines, we can avoid calling in a third party mediator and a revert war. Travb (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: According to the weight of scholarly opinion, the aim of Truman and other key US decision makers in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Soviets, then correctly understood as emerging out of the war as the major rival to US power, the ability and willingness of the US to use nuclear weapons and their devastating effect on large human targets; Japan was already persuing peace talks that Summer and was days away from agreeing to surrender. Therefore, according to this view (most historians who have studied the issue), the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet most reasonable definitions (including the US legal definition) of terrorism, EXCEPT that there was a declared state of war between the US and Japan. My question therefore is the following: Should this state of war be considered irrelevant, since the acts in question had nothing to do with the prosecution of the war. The war only provided a cover for acts that were aimed at generating fear in a (then ally) emerging rival. Should Hiroshima and Naga be included as nuclear terrorism? --NYCJosh 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see: #Defining_terrorism  no one seems to want to be the first person to suggest a defintion, so I am going to try and provide one, we need to debate this folks, and come to a rough consensus.Travb (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Why is it mentioned as a 'renegade' act? It was part of Operation Whella Wallawa, not some isolated accident. Green01 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Lai 

message: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection
There have been so many sections of this article deleted, I can't keep up.  It is obvious that there are two groups here: a group who wants to build this page, and a group who wants to complete delete it, section by section, including the initiator of the AfD.  I want to revert to an earlier version, before half the article was deleted, but this would destroy many valuable edits, and these sections will simply be deleted again.Travb (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested page protection

message: This user is not much different from other deletionists with this page: 
Total words deleted in this article by user: 1,963 words, number of words added: 3. Documented all here on this temporary page: User:Travb/Deletions#Deletions
Signed: Travb (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The reason why I am asking for page protection