Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 5

message: :The following discussion is an closed debate of a page move. Please do not modify it. 
The result of the debate was: Oppose 
* Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America → Political violence by the United States as per Wikipedia policy: Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_viewA smiliar article Zionist terrorism was changed to Zionist political violence, and the amount of revert wars and contention decreased on this page immensely.   Travb (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per above. Travb (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments 
As the mediator I would like to note that allegations is a weasel word. WikieZach| talk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not agree that allegations is a weasel word, if we are in fact writing about allegations. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but "Allegations" just isn't a "weasel word", it's not on the list of weasel words, can't be, and never will be - it's a noun that describes a definite article.--Zleitzen 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a weasel word that takes away the authority of the act.  And it is on the list and it is in the style guide.  Only when used to describe a crime by a person should it be used.  In this case, it opens the door for all sort of WP:OR because it just has to be "alleged" and not real.--Tbeatty 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the coversations below, and the hard work of Lisa.  There seems to be a constructive comprimise toward a viable name change which we can all agree with, so thankfully, the argument over whether "allegations" is a weasel word appears to now be moot, and we can move on, agreeing to disagree. Travb (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as per above. Travb (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments 
As the mediator I would like to note that allegations is a weasel word. WikieZach| talk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree that allegations is a weasel word, if we are in fact writing about allegations. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but "Allegations" just isn't a "weasel word", it's not on the list of weasel words, can't be, and never will be - it's a noun that describes a definite article.--Zleitzen 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a weasel word that takes away the authority of the act.  And it is on the list and it is in the style guide.  Only when used to describe a crime by a person should it be used.  In this case, it opens the door for all sort of WP:OR because it just has to be "alleged" and not real.--Tbeatty 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the coversations below, and the hard work of Lisa.  There seems to be a constructive comprimise toward a viable name change which we can all agree with, so thankfully, the argument over whether "allegations" is a weasel word appears to now be moot, and we can move on, agreeing to disagree. Travb (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I moved the strawpolls page to Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls and Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls-talk. It was necessary to move them out of the main article space. Sorry for any confusion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom, although I still don't understand why you did what you did, even after you explained on my talk page, I appreciate it. Travb (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: I will realese my desicion on what will stay and go on the article (per the strawpoll) early Monday morning. Thank you. --WikieZach| talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator Review 

message: Earlier on the page Tom Harrison stated 
:"A better idea would be to avoid original research, include only material backed up by verifiable citations to reliable sources, and present allegations as allegations rather than as fact. At this point I think we all need to verify that each source actually says what it is presented as saying."
Does anyone have any more objections to this proposal which I'm confident is the best way to approach the topic? This seemed to be agreed by a number of users. If not, then can we proceed? --Zleitzen 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good I will start checking through them --User:Zer0faults 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Last I knew, that was the original plan months back, before this decended to mediation. And indeed that plan didn't really work, thanks to the need for "terrorism" to be explicitly called out in references. This must be the US, or a department of the US goverment, explicitly being accused of performing terrorism, rather than meerly supporting or protecting terrorists. The other articles on state terror are based on the same premise - since terrorism has almost no definition, we ourselves at wikipedia cannot declare if something is a terrorist action or not. If everyone is willing this time to follow such a plan, then I see no reason why we can't decide now how to strip the article down to such statements. LinaMishima 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source should define whether it is "state terrorism" or not. See the Syria page, Lina. Backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups is what the US accuse the Syrians of under their "State terrorism" terminology. Therefore it goes into that page. If a notable accuses the US of state terrorism by backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups then it should go into this page.--Zleitzen 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a notable accuses the US of state terrorism because they are backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups then it should go into this page. That is how I think that should read, meaning if the accusations is they are supporting terrorists, that is not an act of state terrorism, nor an accusation of it. The source has to say the US commited state terrorism. Its WP:OR for us to say the US says state terrorism = X so all accusations of X = state terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Although in other forms of writing it is Allowable to go "A is B; B is C; Therefore A is C", that is explicitly not allowed under WP:NOR. Whilst I support some leeway for trivial cases, allegations of state terror is not one of these, especially since terrorism has no real definition. We cannot define that something that there may be cause to allege as state terrorism is alleged as that, unless it infact has been called that. LinaMishima 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Syrian page please. The US Government accuse the Syrians of engaging in "state terrorism" using that terminology. That page details those claims. The Cuban Government accuse the US of engaging in "state terrorism" using that terminology. This page details those claims. --Zleitzen 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am saying is, if the source says the US is harboring terrorists, that is not an accusations of state terrorism and cannot be included. If the source says the US is commiting state terrorism by harboring terrorists, then that is fine. I believe Lina is saying the same. The direct accusations of terrorism has to be there, not supporting terrorists, not backing or supporting, but actually of terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is saying the US is commiting terrorism. It says: "accomplice of terrorism". --Zleitzen 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the same thing, sorry. --User:Zer0faults 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the same thing.  Sorry.  The U.S. accused Iraq of "State Sponsored Terrorism" because it was "harboring terrorists" -- in fact, the terrorists were just living there, very much against the Iraqi Government's wishes -- and then used that as an excues to **initiate**a**war**. So yes -- harboring terrorists is "involvement in international terrorism" by the U.S. government's own estimation, so it's quite o.k. to say the U.S. government is engaged in terrorism simply by harboring a known terrorist;  and when it can be shown that the U.S. government was responsible for supporting, training, or aiding (whether through logistical intelligence or the transfer of materiel) a known terrorist group or actor, then yes -- the United States is in that case, as well, sponsoring and/or initiating terrorism.Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the provenance of this page and the citing editor to make the proper distinctions between initiating and sponsoring, but the efforts of "zerofaults"  and "lina" are clearly intended to weight citations down with so much artificial, irrelevant criteria as to make it impossible for there to be any actual, realio, trulio information presented on the page. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of the word "terrorism" is by no means a valid requirement, because what is called "terrorism" today was at one time called "vandalism", at others "barbarism", at others "violation", at others "pillaging", and so on.  "Terrorism" is a word used to describe a set of acts associated with a certain tactical method;  its legal definitions are largely non-existent, and its use as an ethical condemnation is haphazard and chauvinistic.  Meanwhile, although ancient writers obviously didn't use the word "terrorism", they would yet recognize our intent.  Just as it's ridiculous to make the assertion that ancient times didn't suffer identical tactical and military outrages, so also it's ridiculous to pretend as if the one, consistent meaning in all uses of the term is in fact the least relevant to our current debate. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: After all this is, once again, nothing more than a disingenuous attempt by people who are offended at the association of the word "terrorism" with the entity of the United States.  The response we give them should be singular and loud:  tough luck.  If you don't like it, then present your case on the page.  But kindly do so in a respectful manner, limit yourself to the facts which are presented, and leave the title and structure of the page as it stands. If you disagree that this or that act was terrorist in nature, then find analysis that supports your position and put it on the page.  Otherwise, act honorably and let both sides present their case. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to Tom Harrision proposal

message: *Granma News - The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón - Alarcon makes no such statement in the article, headline seems to be a dramatization of the actual comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by zer0faults (talk • contribs).
*:Doesn't matter - it's not state terrorism, meerly not dealing with independant terrorists. Ergo I suggest this be culled (although it will have a use somewhere, this article probably isn't the right place) LinaMishima 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these sections will be delete when the mediator decides the results of the strawpoll, so we won't have to worry about them. I will message him today.  I hope in the spirit of comprimise and respecting the (as of yet decided) results of the strawpoll, that by "review" we all mean "rewrite" and not "delete". Travb (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them are offsite articles, they cannot be rewritten. For onsite articles they need to be sourced according to the title. No sources need to be deleted, they just cannot be used to support an allegation if they do not contain one, they can be used to support an event however if they properly mention one. Z above reccomended we take care of this now, hence my postings, feel free to review some articles yourself. --User:Zer0faults 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles in need of review

message: I started a discussion here, if anyone feels I misrepresented them my apologies and feel free to clarify. I posted the link above but figure this will stand out more to people who wish to ask more questions of items that may be on the border. Happy Wikiediting. -- NuclearUmpf 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:NOR

message: *please, add this:
::U.S. Terrorism in the Americas an Encyclopedia "on violence promoted, supported and carried out by both the U.S. government and its servants in Latin America" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.92.176.23 (talk • contribs).
::: A Wiki edited and owned by the Cuban government? I dont think so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, so Wikipedia is edited and owned by the US government?! Adding a link doesn't mean to support its argmentations: if you are interested, you can read it, otherwise not. Where's the problem? (excuseme for my bad english...) --213.140.21.228 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not use other wiki's for sources. Further the article is locked, and EL's are not suppose to be bias, just informative beyond content of the original article. --NuclearZer0 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the links anon, I will add it to the "external links" section of the article.  User:NuclearUmpf is correct, we should not use wiki's for sources for anything we write in the article itself.  Travb (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Wow, Lord? When were you knighted Seabhcan, and why wasn't I invited? Travb (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongo knighted me. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a edit history behind this, I would love to read it. Travb (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha. Its not that interesting. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord?

message: Some people use notes tag, however you can just name they differently and cite the page in the book title <ref name="BlumPage8"> would work, that way they come up as different references. --NuclearZer0 16:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: its coming up correctly simply by using the pages tag in the cite book system. Thank you. I will fix the others formats later, again please cite all the sections since you reverted all of them. Thank you.--NuclearZer0 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple references