Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 17

message: Preliminary issues is offered are:
* When a website describes itself as an advocacy site, do we agree that it is then generally ineligible as a reliable source? I find that almost all advocacy sites are honest about this and look in the "about us" section for their self-evaluation of what they are.
* Some advocacy sites describe themselves as "independent media" and try to claim they are a media rather than an advocacy site. These may or may not require a case by case evaluation by WP policies, with an initial presumption for "reliable". The WP policy suggests that if a marginal site reports news that no one else reports, that this should be considered. Raggz (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the exposure to date, I believe that we may presume tacit consensus on this. Raggz (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends.  Advocacy sites often reprint articles occurring in the mainstream, and there is substantial precedent for allowing links to such articles.  Also, advocacy sites often have experts working for them (think Heritage Foundation), and can offer various informed opinions.  If the source is notable enough, then I see no reason that an advocacy site should not be allowed as a reliable source, as long as the attribution is done in an appropriately NPOV way.  In other words, I would resist saying that advocacy sites are always good or always bad sources.  It has to be done on a case-by-case basis.  Silly rabbit (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious References - Preliminary issues 

message: Christian Science Monitor: 
"The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) is an international newspaper published daily, Monday through Friday. Started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, the paper does not usually use wire services and instead relies largely on its own reporters in bureaus in nineteen countries around the world. Many of the newspaper's staff editors and reporters are Christian Scientists, although membership in the church is not a requirement for employment.[citation needed]
Despite the name, the CSM is a newspaper that covers current events around the world. The paper professes that its purpose is not an attempt to evangelize.[1] With the exception of a daily religious feature on the The Home Forum page, the content represents international and United States news.
As of 2005, the print circulation is reported to be 71,000 but has a much larger online readership.[2]
Do we have consensus that this is a reliable source? Raggz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a reliable source. Abiasaph (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Source is reliable.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Christian Science Monitor]]

message: The New Criterion is a New York-based literary magazine and journal of artistic and cultural criticism. Founded in 1982 by Hilton Kramer and Samuel Lipman, The New Criterion is published monthly. It is edited by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball, and has a circulation of around 6000. It has sections for criticism of poetry, theater, art, music, the media, and books.
The magazine is known for an artistic classicism and political conservatism that is rare among other publications of its type. It describes itself as "America’s foremost voice of critical dissent in culture and the arts," "a staunch defender of the values of high culture," and "an articulate scourge of artistic mediocrity and intellectual mendacity wherever they are found: in the universities, the art galleries, the media, the concert halls, the theater, and elsewhere." [2]
It regularly publishes "special pamphlets," or compilations of published material organized into themes. Some past examples have been Corrupt Humanitarianism, Religion, Manners and Morals in the U.S. and Great Britain, and Reflections on Anti-Americanism.
TNC has been running The New Criterion Poetry Prize, a poetry contest with a cash prize, since 1999. In 2004, New Criterion contributors began publishing a blog, known as Armavirumque.
:I believe that we have tacit consensus for retaining The New Criterion as a reliable source. Raggz (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New Criterion is a venerable cultural and literary mag operating from the conservative end of the cultural and political spectrum. In general it's a valid source--like most all of the other sources Raggz has brought up--but like any other source we should always evaluate it in terms of the specific context in which it is being used.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Criterion

message: Transnational Institute (TNI) is an international think tank for progressive politics. It was established in 1974 in Amsterdam and serves as a network for scholars and activists. Though now independent, it was established as the international programme of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.
TNI receives part of its institutional funding from the Samuel Rubin Foundation (New York). In addition, it is supported on a project basis by a range of funders, including church agencies, peace and environmental organisations, European foreign and development co-operation ministries, the European Commission, and private foundations in the United States and Europe.
A tough call. I say look carefully at this one. It serves as a network for scholars and activists? If it said scholars, fine. If it said activists, no. People can be both, so my preliminary thought is fine, let it stay? Raggz (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I challenge Landau, Saul (2003-02-13). Interview with Ricardo Alarcón. Transnational Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for fifty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests fifty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past fifty years, not just thirty years back. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transnational Institute]]

message: http://www.workers.org/
Enough said? Raggz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for forty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests forty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past forty years, not just thirty years back. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You presume that the Bay of Pigs involved state terrorism? By what definition? By what reliable source? Raggz (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Workers World]]

message: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Website http://www.rhc.cu/ 
Radio Havana Cuba (Spanish: Radio Habana Cuba, RHC) is the official government-run international broadcasting station of Cuba. It can be heard in many parts of the world including The United States on shortwave at 6.000Mhz and other frequencies. [1]
A primary government run source. Fine. Subject to the primary source limitations of policy. Raggz (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Governments pretending to be journalists are not really journalists. Raggz (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then i suppose you also want all references to the BBC and Voice of America deleted, as well? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say that is an extra ordinary claim. That is like me saying, "corporate new media organizations don't have real journalists." Of course that statement would be equally exceptional in nature, and quite frankly false, although it may be a POV. The fact is that journalism is simply the discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news in many media, but mainly in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then i suppose you also want all references to the BBC and Voice of America deleted, as well? Yes, if they violate policy. No, if they do not. Raggz (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio Havana Cuba

message: ^ Counter Currents, 2004 June 19, "Who Is Allawi?" http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan190604.htm; World War 4 Report, "Iraq Meets the New Boss" http://ww4report.com/static/iraq5.html
This citation does not mention terrorism. Is there a reason to retain it? Raggz (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Currents

message: I removed the article length tag, and then reverted myself when I saw this discussion.  Is there really an authentic proposal to create WP:SUMMARY articles with titles like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in Cuba etc? MilesAgain (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that is inappropriate. I would seek to use existing articles on countries and human rights/US foreign policy. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the primary hesitation that some editors have to breaking off to sub articles is that instead of having to defend one article from vandals and POV, there are several targets that vandals and POV crusaders will target and maintaining several articles in a healthy status will become an overwhelming chore. At least that is my sense of the conversations I have seen on this page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you would restore the content here and have yet another example of these people causing trouble. If they are so problematic you should use the formal dispute resolution channels. Complaining about them such that you can't even summarise material rather does suggest you should do that. John Smith's (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have a responsibility to this article. Our primary responsibility is for our own edits. People have edited in text that does not seem to even try to comply with NPOV. When an editor does this and then suggests that I do the editing necessary for their text to comply, my inclination is to instead delete it (as NPOV policy requires). If someone is making an obvious attempt and still needs some help, then I have more motivation to help other editors with their edits. How about I edit my contributions for NPOV - and we all do the same? Then we can discuss each others edits. This would be the best first step. Who agrees? Raggz (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Material is Neutral in its Point of View.  You have failed to show it is not.  Do not delete it without discussion.  To add material, please create sandbox.  Stone put to sky (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What would you call the subarticles?