Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 18

message: Here is the material from the 'quotes' section that editors seemed to agree to move to wikiquote. I have removed from the article and placed here as temporary holding ground until transfer to wikiquote completed. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these quotes can be incorporated within the article. Maybe have a section for comments by heads of states?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For transfer to wikiquote 

message: ::I think these quotes can be incorporated within the article. Maybe have a section for comments by heads of states?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Forget article length, the talk page is five times that length! The bot that is archiving this page is currently set to archive only those discussion threads that have gone stale for 14 days. There is a lot of stuff that will be sitting here for awhile which would probably be best moved into the archive as soon as possible. Any objections to changing the settings for now so that the bot archives every 10 days, or better yet 7? If something gets archived which should not have we can always move it back, and once the page gets cleared up a bit maybe we can move it back to 14 days if folks so desire. If a few people are okay with this I'll change the settings at the top of the page. 14 days just seems like a really long time for a page that is so active right now and which has a ton of threads that really went nowhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm cool with that- by all means be bold ;). Is all of the old material that sticks at the top, such as the Japan and Opposing Views sandboxes really necessary? BernardL (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those sections should have been archived a long time ago.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'm going to try to take it down to 10 days for now (keeping it conservative). If anyone objects they can feel free to move it back to 14, but I really don't think it will be a problem. I manually moved the first three threads that were stuck at the top into the archive.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I will be back soon. Raggz (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now adjusted to 7 days.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question on archiving talk 

message: Most of the allegations made in the article lack a reliable source. See the RfC issues articulated below.  Primary sources are ineligible to make an allegation of state terrorism because of the WP primary source policy cannot be used unless there is a secondary mainstream source. "Extraordinary claims" challenged under WP:REDFLAG are ineligible to make an allegation of state terrorism because of the WP:REDFLAG policy cannot be used unless there is a secondary "mainstream media" source. 
I propose to delete the sections (such as the Cuban and Phillipine material) where there is no reliable source specifically alleging an incident of state terrorism by the United States. Raggz (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at length, and your claims that there are no reliable sources to support the contents of the sections have been refuted. Since this was so recent, I doubt that consensus on these questions has changed. Btw, you never responded to the various sources that were provided for you to look at by BernardL in the sand box that support the charges found in the Cuba section. So why do you again propose to delete the section? This smacks of bad faith editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: We don't need two definitions of what state terrorism is - or is not in Wikipedia. I propose that we merge the entire definitions section into state terrorism. We would just link to that definition because there should not be one definition for the world and another for the United States.
:*Proposed: The definition of state terrorism for this article will be the same definition used by state terrorism.
:I disagree (and again, there was no reason to raise this same argument up again.). Its beating a dead horse. Consensus was that WP articles need not be consistent, one does not have to be based on the content of the other. If there is an issue with either of these articles contents, then they must be addressed on their own basis, without reference to other WP articles. WP is, has much as I hate to say it, not a reliable source. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would state terrorism in the rest of the world be different than terrorism by the United States? Raggz (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what Giovanni is saying is that the state terrorism article is currently not suitable to use as a definition of state terrorism here or elsewhere.  Perhaps you should lobby for the improvement of the state terrorism article instead of pressing the point here. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  State terrorism defined (RfC) 

message: The opposing views does not actually present any opposing views, has significant OR, was added without consensus, and without TALK. It is a thinly disguised attempt to introduce the balance required by NPOV. NPOV can only be provided when each important claim is offered appropriate coverage, not by a mashed up essay that discusses none of these. Raggz (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was added by an editor who is not working on the article anymore. I agree it is no good and probably most others will as well (not many liked it in the first place). NPOV balance should be in each individual section, not in one section at the end. I've worked to add some balance to the Hiroshima section and think such work should continue in other sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy if we deleted the entire section, myself.  In the interest of NPOV, however, i would first like to see what sort of material we would use to replace it with.  For my part, i have allowed it to stand solely as a testament to the utter [insert appropriate term here] of the authors who introduced it.  Stone put to sky (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bigtimepeace, and consider this progress toward consensus. Each editor needs to do their best to comply with NPOV in each edit. None of us will really always manage this, but it needs to be what we strive for. Raggz (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing views 

message: New sections have been added without consensus. Do we have an understanding (as was claimed) that all edits need to first be discussed? Raggz (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To what sections are you referring? You'll have to list them here. Obviously we do not have an understanding that all edits first need to be discussed because you apparently do not hold yourself to that standard. You made changes without discussing them (posting a note about it on talk does not constitute "discussion" - you need to wait for other parties to weigh in). You've made these kind of mass changes before without discussing and it did not get you anywhere. I will not revert you though because I've already reverted twice and impose a 2RR limit for myself as a rule. Someone else will probably undo most or all of your changes simply because you refused to solicit opinion about them before editing. Your editing style continues to rub folks the wrong way. I wish you'd adjust it instead of continuing the patter of starting ten new huge talk threads rehashing old arguments and then deleting things without discussing beforehand.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to Europe. Raggz (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so just that one section on Europe. I don't know when that was added exactly, but at the latest it was last July when there was a section on "Eastern and Western Europe." I have no idea if it was added against consensus or not, but that was well before you came here. What is your evidence that it was added against consensus? Incidentally I personally don't think much of this section and might even agree with you about it in terms of it not belonging - I'd need to look more closely - but it might have had consensus when originally added.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never agreed to edit this article differently than others. I have slowed my editing and discussed everything. Who claims that I never discuss anything? I plan to edit the article, and if others weight the edit carefully, and feel compelled to revert - fine. Just don't engage is mass reverts - or "page blanking". Raggz (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you expect us to take anything you say seriously when you make claims like :I have ... discussed everything when hours before making this statement you have made a dozen undiscussed changes to the article??? Please. We are not idiots and you cannot continue to misrepresent your actions and other editors actions and expect us to give you full credence. AGF has its limits. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: I've been playing with my cache/firewall and it seems i've inadvertently deleted some things. Sorry.  (re-post of earlier message) Stone put to sky (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh! 

message: Raggz, i am not interested in antagonizing you, but if do insist on reverting again i will report you.  Stone put to sky (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that I violated the 3RR. It is possible. I won't take reporting policy violations personally if you believe that it is necessary, I am responsible for any errors I may make. Reporting won't antagonize me. Yes, I will be reverting again, presently I am waiting to hear why you reverted OR twice. I have asked you the two questions that you have not answered clearly. You are obliged by WP:CON to clearly answer these. Reporting might be a productive step because then we will both then be held responsible for our reverts, and we are not working well together on reverts right now. If this reverting pattern persists I will likely report us both soon unless some other resolution for our dispute can be worked out. Raggz (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raggz has violated the 3RR 

message: An example is the media owned by the government of Cuba that have alleged state terrorism. 
:The "mainstream media" (as defined by WP:REDFLAG) did not echo Cuba's use of the term "state terrorism" when covering these claims. 
:Cuba has formally often stated that freedom of the press does not exist within Cuba - and should never exist. 
:Consider that Cuba made these statements as the plantiff in an 18 billion dollar lawsuit against the US.
:Proposal: Allegations by primary sources (especially when made to advance a lawsuit) that are not supported by a "mainstream media" echo, are ineligible sources to assert that state terrorism is alleged. Such sources may be used with caution for other purposes,  but not to assert state terrorism.
:::For my part, your proposal is ridiculous.  Rejected, of course.  Who else agrees? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - this is not a coherent argument. Pexise (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is so utterly contrary to WP RS that it does not even merit comment. However, to avoid Raggz assuming 'tacit concensus', I will state: NoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources

message: ::::I respectfully disagree.  
::::From the first:
:::::"We have witnessed the creation of ... terrorist groups and organizations ... funded by Western and other Intelligence Agencies ... in a manner similar to which Operation Gladio ...."
::::The only "weasel-words" that might call that sentence into question really don't do anything to alter its fundamental statement:
:::::"We have witnessed the creation of so called ... terrorist groups and organizations ... funded by Western and other Intelligence Agencies ... in a manner similar to ... Operation Gladio...."
::::I can't imagine a more explicit connection between the funding and support of terrorism and Operation Gladio.  The intent of the sentence is clearly to associate "Western Intelligence Agencies" with the creation of terrorist groups "in a manner similar to...Gladio".  While it is true that she does not lay responsibility for the Gladio project solely at the U.S. government's feet, it would be ridiculous to argue that her reference to "Western Intelligence Agencies" doesn't include the C.I.A. (and outlandishly so, considering it was the C.I.A. who organized and administered Gladio).  It seems to me that what you are suggesting is that because she does not implicate the U.S. as sole arbiter of this transgression we therefore cannot include it.  
::::Doesn't that seem as great a stretch to you as it does to me?
::::Now, regarding the next item i can only presume that you didn't read it carefully enough.
:::::Throughout Europe, U.S. and British officials...set up...armies to...prevent Communist electoral victories....incorporated fascists and former Nazis...."to destabilize any left-leaning government, even a Social Democratic one....The U.S. pushed for a secret clause in the North Atlantic Treaty requiring the secret services of all joining nations to establish their own branches of the secret army -- and to oppose Communist influence, even if the population voted for Communist candidates in free elections....The covert project['s]....[a]gents set up hundreds of arms caches all across Europe; one was at the U.S. Army's Camp Derby....Charles deGaulle pulled France out of NATO partially due to the secret protocol, which he considered a violation of sovereignty, and...a danger to his government....Discovery of the covert project in 1990 caused a political firestorm in Europe....the European Parliament passed a strongly worded denunciation of the clandestine organization, its antidemocratic implications, and the terrorist acts associated with it. [36]
::::I don't think one can get any clearer than that.  That paragraph clearly lays out the origins of Gladio in U.S. policy;  strongarm tactics by NATO to force the creation of Gladio-type brigades, the clearly illegal and anti-democratic intent of the organization;  and an undeniable linkage between the "stay-behind armies" and "terrorist acts".  But it goes on:
:::::Italian investigators discovered connections between the secret Gladio plans and well-known terrorist acts, attempted military coups, and the undermining of democratic institutions in the 1970s and 1980s. Later, investigators linked Gladio with terrorist attacks officially attributed to left-wing guerrillas....A parliamentary commission on terrorism concluded that the infamous 1980 bombing of the Bolognarail station...used bomb materials from a Gladio arsenal. [37] One major neofascist figure, Licio Gelli, was found guilty by an Italian court in this bombing case, but later the conviction was overturned, causing a national outcry. According to Arthur Rowse (1991), after collaborating with the Nazis in World War II, Gelli joined the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps. He was the founder (in 1964) of the global Masonic lodge Propaganda-Due (P-2), an anticommunist organization with close links to military and intelligence organizations (notably the CIA) and powerful political figures worldwide. [38] P-2 was outlawed in Italy in 1981 after it was discovered to have infiltrated its members into strategic government, military, and intelligence positions, in preparation for taking over the government. P-2 also wielded significant influence in Argentina.
::::Is that not yet enough?  In that one paragraph alone we have -- in addition to the above -- confirmed, reliably sourced assertions that:  bomb materials came from official, U.S. administered/established arms caches; direct, official links between the CIA and a convicted terrorist; and reliably sourced revelations of direct links between the C.I.A. and the organization in which that person served as organizer and leader.  Not enough, yet? O.k, then -- more:
:::::A 1992 British Broadcasting Company (BBC) documentary on the Cold War featured an interview with U.S. Colonel Oswald LeWinter, who asserted that the CIA had penetrated or controlled right-wing terrorist organizations, including P [2,] and recruited members on the basis of anticommunism.
::::Direct acknowledgment that the CIA had direct access to, knowledge of, and control of P2's activities.   
:::::Gelli was a key figure linking U.S. officials, the CIA, and Argentine military commanders....the CIA deputy station chief in Rome, Ted Shackley, introduced Gelli to General Alexander Haig...Nixon's chief of staff and later...NATO Supreme Commander. Gladio reportedly received major funding with the approval of Haig and Henry Kissinger, then head of the National Security Council.
::::Confirmation that Gladio was known to be infiltrated by a terrorist organization and then, despite that fact, funded throughout the seventies with approval from the highest levels of  U.S. government.  
::::And you're seriously arguing that this isn't enough to prove that this guy is linking the United States and Gladio's terrorist acts?  O.k, then -- more:
:::::During the investigation of Gladio, former Italian Defense Minister Paulo Taviani told a judge that the Italian secret services were directed and financed by CIA officers stationed in the U.S. Embassy.  Indeed, General Giovanni de Lorenzo, who headed the secret service called SIFAR (1956), later headed the Caribineri (1962), and then became Defense Minister (1964), conducted secret counterterrorism planning with U.S. officials but did not inform his own government. ....[this] illuminate[s] the key role of the CIA.  De Lorenzo was the key Gladio contact with the U.S. government, and Vernon Walters was a key U.S. link to De Lorenzo.
::::"Key link" -- "C.I.A." -- "Italian Secret Services" -- "Assassination" -- "Secret 'counterterrorism' planning without informing his own government" -- but wait!  There's more:
:::::....[E]vidence suggests that key individuals formed part of a global anticommunist network that involved P-2, Condor, Gladia, the CIA, and defense and intelligence personnel in Western countries.
::::Considering that this guy has just spent three paragraphs outlining condemnations of terrorist activity by the italian governnment, i really don't see how you can suggest the article isn't "explicit" in its implications and assertions.
::::As for the last source (Ganser):
:::::...it is greatly upsetting to discover that Western Europe and the United States collaborated in establishing secret armed networks which in the majority of countries are suspected of having had links to acts of terrorism. In the United States, such nations have been called rogue states and are the object of hostility and sanction.
::::This statement clearly states that, according to its own measure of "State Terrorism", the United States -- as a consequence of its actions in Europe -- qualifies as a sponsor of "State Terror".  That is as explicit a statement as one can imagine, and -- again -- there seems no reason to disqualify it on any grounds.  
::::I honestly have can not understand -- at all -- how you can argue that the statements made in these articles are not explicit enough.  I await your reply with interest.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break for Convenience:  Europe, Pt. II

message: Personally, i don't have any problem with the edits;  most are merely punctuation corrections, and the one part s/he cut content from has already been acknowledged by several editors as superfluous (at worst) or poorly constructed (at best).  I do, however, object to the deletion of content without any mention or prior discussion on the talk page.  It seems an extremely bad policy for this page and so i feel it would be best to play devil's advocate and revert them.  Except i don't like playing content games and i really hate bureaucratic numbskulls.  So what would be best, i think, is if someone comes out to argue in their defense.  Any takers?  Stone put to sky (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any of these edits as 'controversial' and have no objection (if in fact it is WP MOS to use "U.S."). From the comments and edits made, Uwfruct seems to have actually read the sources. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were fine in my opinion. Most were minor and completely uncontroversial, though some stuff was deleted from the opposing views section. I don't think anyone has a problem with that per an earlier thread but agree that that should have been discussed per our general rule about discussing before making significant changes. I have no urge to revert Uwfruct and don't think that's necessary. If Uwfruct hangs around to make further changes someone can just point out that we generally discuss fairly significant changes before making them (as a new contributor to the article, I think, I would not expect the user to know that). No big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I also took a look and am also fine with the edits. No objections. I guess the editor could tell from reading on the talk page and used common sense that the changes would not be controversial (unlike what Raggz has been doing).Giovanni33 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those edits were fine according to me.BernardL (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits by Uwfruct(?) 

message: I've reverted him once again.  I looked over the edits and they are in violation of the 3RR. I will not report for the moment, but am giving formal warning.  Stone put to sky (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not make false statements. I have only made 3 edits. Not all the same. Do you have factual arguments? Wikipedia now has factually incorrect statements which are not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultramarine 

message: I was looking for more sources to add when I came across a book on Amazon link here. The Table of Contents and index (among other available pages), accessible for free through Amazon Reader, seems to suggest that there are lots of topics covered relevant to the discussion here. Does anyone have any time they can dedicate to taking a look at this book? --Ubardak (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, but I know at least one or two editors are familiar with this book. It's referenced in at least three different footnotes (not that that's easy to spot!).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, there goes my trust in Ctrl+F ;) Thanks for letting me know. --Ubardak (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your effort anyway. I hope you keep up your researches.BernardL (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I shall do just that ;) --Ubardak (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ordered that book last week. Raggz (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source that might help 

message: Well, i truly am sorry if my arguments came off with some sort of vitriolic overtone;  i have a lot of respect for your contributions to both this article as well as off-page.  I don't know if teary-eyed emoticons do it for you, but here's one just in case -- ;-(
And yeah -- sometimes i write a lot.  I'm a skilled typist and i enjoy delving into complicated issues.  Also, where some in Wikipedia have found that it's easiest to communicate with short, stilted phrasing and minimalist commentary i've found the opposite.  I say a lot so that i may give voice to those issues that often get cynically swept under the rug, here.  
Let me further add that i wouldn't have spent nearly as much time thinking or composing a response like the one above for a person like Raggz.  It's precisely because i respect your opinions and status here that i took the time to give you that slice of my perspective.  It may have been too heavy on the onions and garlic, but spices are the means by which good meals are created.  I sincerely hope you haven't been revolted by them.
Now, i understand and trust perfectly well your motives.  But my happenstance wandering into another page's RfC has proven, i think, that my worries are as justified as they clearly aren't aimed at limiting your own productivity or vision.
Further, i haven't put words into your mouth (or at least i tried not to);  i think my post, above, made it quite clear that i was speaking of my own understanding of your positions, and i'm sorry if it seemed that was overstepping "probable cause" and mangling your own position.  What i did do, howeever, was extrapolate about what i think the eventual endpoint of your proposition might be;  i did not suggest that was your own intent nor your own hope for  the page, and again -- i'm sorry if my words appeared to imply that.  Indeed, i thought -- hoped, but apparently was wrong -- that you would grasp my opposition is not to the spirit of your suggestion but rather to the results it might very well produce.  
Finally:  no, i don't draw connections between great government conspiracies and what happens in my life.  I'm not that important.  I limit myself to observations about the practical reality before me and nothing else.  I really do hope that you'll refrain from characterizing me in such a light;  it is yet another bitter pill to swallow -- you may engage in sarcasm with rivals and people you trust, but i almost never do.  I consider it a demeaning mode of expression and you will rarely find me using it with people whose understanding/opinions i respect.
Let me summarize the main points above (wife is calling me to eat) and end with that:
*  The current page, content limits, and page title work against NPOV development;  they were, in fact, chosen precisely with that intent in mind (i.e. -- people work the page and then it gets deleted as not fulfilling NPOV).  That it has so far dodged the bullet is a testament to its relevance and the dedicated collective effort.
*  Your suggestions work only to make allowances for deletionists and others who are dissatisfied with this topic (and who are the ones who forced these limitations on the page in the first place)
*  I agree with you that the page needs more balance but disagree that your suggestions will achieve the ends you have described.  
My suggestion is that we make either a wrapper-page or that we change the name of this one and expand the usage of sources and material.  
Now i'm off to eat.  And sorry, again, for rubbing you so raw.  I speak plainly and directly;  but i have said little of what you claim i did, and 'most none of it represents my intent.  
Even so, i know i have these failings and am sorry they pricked you so unpleasantly.  I'm not trying to be an asp-pole;  i was just born that way.  Stone put to sky (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pg. Break, Pt III

message: What is interesting is this page is not coming up on google. I checked the html code of this page by using view >> page source and I don't see any "nofollow" tags on this page. Strange. Anyone have any idea why? Trav (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, if I type in certain phrases in this article into google, google pulls up this page, but not if I type in the title with " " around the title. Trav (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i noticed that too.  I'm glad you're concerned by it;  it certainly seems strange to me.  Could it have something to do with the "B" ranking that this page has gotten?  Or could there be something more nefarious? Stone put to sky (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you referring to the fact that if you search for "allegations of state terrorism committed by united states" google returns an empty page? This is almost certainly due to the fact that a phrase of 8 words would not ordinarily be stored unless it is a special case. Smaller phrases are stored for re-usability. However even searching for "state terrorism" and "committed by united states" returns almost nothing. '"state terrorism" committed by united states' on the other hand gets a hit on Wikipedia but not to this article - to one of the peer review pages. It is certainly weird since Wikipedia is ranked pretty high in PageRank usually. --Ubardak (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  On google.nl it DOES get found. See:  Nothing to worry about, google is just censoring Americans using the filter software they developed for China. It happens to me all the time, with Dutch sites. But the solution is simple: just put the URL back in the google form, and it will re-emerge. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Google is censoring Americans? That is news to me, and it is something to worry about, if true. I know China employs filtering/censors and companies comply for the State, but why is Google doing this for the US?Giovanni33 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wrote google and reported this issue. Apparently someone can request that a site be removed from Google (due to privacy concerns, etc). I wonder if someone did this and managed to get this article removed from the US/English google search on that basis. Google also says they only censor in compliance with local laws, etc. In any case, I look forward to their reply to my correspondence on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Update: While google did not write me back with an explanation, I did another test today and the censoring of this page by typing in "allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States" is no longer the case; now not only shows up, it ranks #2. Seems they fixed something? However, unless you type on those quotes, the search does not yield this page by typing in State terrorism by the United States, etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the update, Giovanni. This censoring is really quite interesting. Obvious questions arise, such as, who decides to censor?, on what basis or on whose recommendation?, and, what other (WP or other) webpages are being censored? This could also be an interesting story for the press, if certain basic facts could be established, and this page could get some more prominent attention. Please keep posting to this section with any further news, developments or other related suggestions.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello. It is coming up in first place for me, using the title without quotes on google.ca (google canada)BernardL (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I tried several countries and it was blocking this site only for the United States. I'm happy that as of now, however, it is also coming up without the quotations. Seems like this "error" has been solved. I'd be quite interested in solving the mysterious cause, though. It would also be logical that if this was intentional and politically based, then the actor would have attempted the same for other similar articles. It would be worth a check.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google bot is not recognizing this page 

message: Please explain the removal of this sourced information: .Ultramarine (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons have been given in the archive.  Since it wasn't i who removed it, i can't really say, but i fully support its removal.  The quotation by "Sam Harris" was criticizing Chomsky and had nothing to say about the concept of State Terrorism.  Since this article is about State Terrorism and not Noam Chomsky the material is just as clearly off topic.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are no reasons in the archive. If so quote them. The quote (and the other deleted material) was discussing Chomsky's use and application of the word terrorism and thus very relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't.  And it's not my job to quote them.  Stone put to sky (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all." Clearly mentions terrorism. Still no explanation for why also the deletion of the criticism of Chomsky's biased application of state terrorism, for example by ignoring terrorism by socialist states.Ultramarine (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No.  It mentions neither state terrorism nor the united states.  It does not address any arguments or issues that have direct bearing on this article's content.  Finally, it's only a criticism of Chomsky.  it's obviously off-topic.  Stone put to sky (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again, terrorism is mentioned and criticizes Chomsky's methodology.Ultramarine (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions of criticisms 

message: The Philippines section is certainly a mess of original research and horrible sourcing. I will address the two statements that claim the US is involved in state terrorism in the Philippines.
The first source reports on the findings of the Permanent People's Tribunal, a plainly fringe pseudo-court. It makes allegations of state terrorism, but is not even remotely a reliable source.
 
The second source makes no claims about US state terrorism.
The third source is strongly critical of the United States, but makes absolutely no claims about US state terrorism.
The fourth source mentions state terrorism. However, it's an extremist source.   
The fifth source more directly links the US support with state-sponsored terrorism. However, CounterPunch is another fringe source.
The sixth source is of debatable reliability and only states that some commentators call the Philippino actions state terrorism and that "perhaps" the US is providing special training to Philippino counter-terrorism operatives.  
The seventh source is reliable and mentions "state terror", but says nothing about US state terrorism. In the opening, it simply makes a general observation about oppressive governments in Asia and Western interests. The article criticizes the US's foreign policy supporting the War on Terror, but does not accuse the United States of state terrorism.
In the end, it's a collection of mostly fringe/unreliable sources with only three unreliable extremist sources remotely making any claims about US state terrorism. 
First source, no mention of US state terrorism.
Second source, no assertion of US state terrorism.
Third source, the only mention is a somewhat obscure statement about "state terrorism" (in regards to the Philippines) in a quote.
Fourth source, no mention of US state terrorism.
The fifth source is a repeat of the CounterPunch source above. Again, it makes the claim of state terrorism but it is an unreliable fringe source.
Only one out of five sources speaks of US state terror, and it's an unreliable reference.
So few of the references address state terrorism that the section is unquestionably plagued by original research. The very few references that do address the issue are extremist and unreliable. At best, one can establish that some extremists consider the United States as engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in the Philippines. The whole section should be scrapped. Any reliably sourced material about U.S. responsibility for HR abuses in the Philippines such be addressed at Human rights and the United States. Vassyana (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, your opinion of the "pseudo court", ignores that numerous human rights organizations signed onto the words in the indictment. Therefore by ignoring a "pseudo court" you are ignoring the groups making the statement within. Please be more careful, the plight of my people and the groups who fight for us should not be so easily dismissed because you do not like the forum in which they speak out. --WheezyF (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention of dismissing the abuses suffered by people in the Philippines. However, human rights abuses are not the same as state-sponsored terrorism. Wikipedia rules insist that that claims must be reliably sourced, especially for controversial or disputed claims. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for a cause. Vassyana (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe human rights groups are aware of the issues within their country and since those credible and notable groups are making they allegations, they stand. Since the Peoples Tribunal is a reliable source, and the groups who issued the indictment are as well. It seems the information is reliable. --WheezyF (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only one source. All the other sources do not mention state terrorism and this material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Even accepting this not very notable source, all the other sources as described above do not mention state terrorism and thus violates OR and WP:SYN.Ultramarine (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been noted before, the simple fact that a particular source does not contain the words "state terrorism" is NOT a de facto determinant that the source does not provide content usable for this article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles must follow Wikipedia policy. Arguing that a source is about state terrorism when the source does not mention state terrorism violates WP:OR and WP:SYN. Not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I am arguing in favor of, does state "state terrorism." It seems your argument has been shut down. --WheezyF (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only one source which could possible be kept if considered reliable. All the other sources do not mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You are again mis-applying my comments. Vassyana (and Raggz before that) (and I believe you have also) made statements to the effect that ALL sources that do not have the phrase "state terrorism" are somehow violations of OR and SYN and cannot be used in this article. That is simply, but completely untrue and misapplication of WP policies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it it not. There is no definition of what "state terrorism" is. Thus, anyone can call anything state terrorism. I could add about a link about the US having an embargo Zimbabwe's leaders and declare that this is state terrorism. That would be OR. Just as all the other links in this article taking some random criticism of the US and then the Wikipedia editor himself declaring that this is state terrorism. If the link does not mention state terrorism, then declaring that the link is in fact about state terrorism is then just a personal opinion.Ultramarine (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable sources stating this? If not your straw man is not holding up. There is a difference between a Wikipedia editor stating its "state terrorism" and 7+ human rights organizations stating it is. --WheezyF (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) That is only if those NGOs are reliable sources themselves and/or the claims of "state terrorism" are stated by reputable references. In the absence of reliable sourcing, the claims are not properly verifiable and stitching together sources that do not speak about the topic to reinforce unreliable references is most certainly original research. As stated in the opening paragraph of "No original research": "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [emphasis in original] The verifiability policy indicates that questionable and extremist sources should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Even then, the permitted use of such sources is limited. Also, so much attention should not be accorded to such a tiny minority view only found in fringe sources. Wikipedia articles should not be used for advocacy. It's pretty clear the section is in violation of multiple Wikipedia principles. Vassyana (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the source, you seem to imply its not verifiable. Yet one of the sources you list above directly relates to the Tribunal source, making it verified. There appears to be lots of policies being cited, yet none applicable. The source is on the page of the tribunal, one that is internationally recognized, so it is not self publishing. The information is supported by a second source, therefore verifiable. Finally it is not undue weight, since no counter is even being offered. The source is not fringe, since the groups finding seem to not be contested, and they are internationally recognized and cited by other human rights groups. I fail to see what all of the policies you copy and paste have to do with anything. --WheezyF (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Permanent People's Tribunal is not a reputable source. Can we verify what it said? Sure, and if this were the Permanent People's Tribunal article, it might be worth noting. However, they are a fringe entity with no legal backing and with no acceptance among mainstream NGOs. Their findings being contested or uncontested makes no difference in determining whether or not they are a fringe source. They fall into the extremist end of the political spectrum and make claims only appearing in a small handful of dubious source. That clearly marks the Permanent People's Tribunal as a fringe source. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You link to a mainstream NGO discussing it. You make a claim that I would like you to prove, that the Peoples Tribunal falls into the "Extremist end of the political spectrum." I think 4 reliable sources stating it should be enough. Further your statement is hypocritical since the Peoples Tribunal has the support of 7 human rights organizations who made the claim. Again please either read of the fringe rule you are claiming, or present proof they are. --WheezyF (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Asian Human Rights Commission does wonderful work, but they're not a mainstream NGO. Also, the source of the claims is not those seven (unnamed) HR orgs, but rather an extremist pseudo-court with no legal or mainstream endorsement (which was established with the explicit intention of working outside the boundaries of government and mainstream NGOs). I'm not saying they are correct or incorrect. Rather, I am simply saying that no mainstream and/or reputable references have been provided to make the claim. Vassyana (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me your source stating AHRC is not a main stream NGO, 3 should do. Or are you substituting your personal opinion for fact? --WheezyF (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, that is only one source. That material could be kept. The other sources + material do not mention state terrorism and should be deleted.Ultramarine (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read below, you do not source an article in the manner you are recommending. I believe there is a manual of style which covers issues like this sold at Barnes and Nobles, Borders books etc. When clarifying issues, you should source the location of the clarification. --WheezyF (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I moved your comments since they are not addressing my own. --WheezyF (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines