Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 8

message: FYI:
The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now.  This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Docg 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some very good (and quite obvious) points were made by user A.B. Lovelight 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is A.B.? Travb (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2056 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Sandbox1 seems to have been an attempt to rework this page that went no-where; I've listed it for deletion as a housekeeping measure. If anyone wants to merge material in from there, please do so and redirect the page (to keep the history). Shimgray | talk | 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned sandbox page 

message: Why is the title "State terrorism by United States of America" and not "State terrorism by theUnited States of America" (as it was originally?) Also whoever made the move from there didn't do it correctly, the talkpage from "State terrorism by United States of America" redirects here. Sfacets 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved the Talk page to match the current article title (which is "State terrorism by United States of America" at the moment). I do not want to involve myself in the revert war regarding the title, that is why I simply matched the talk page to the current name. The redirects for the talk page are a mess, but that will have to be sorted out when there is a final title. Until then, I find double redirects (for talk pages) acceptable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Since it is a controversial question whether the US has committed terrorism, the title should not hijack the premise/beg the question by implicitly or explicitly assuming that there is such a thing as state terrorism by the U.S. Allegations of state terrorism of the United States should be the title, with everything else redirecting to it. --Leifern 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohoo, yeah. Let's implement even more systematic bias and comply to the U.S. propaganda. I have only one thing to say about this: if the title of this article is changed to Allegiations of state terrorism by the United States, then I demand Islamist terrorism be renamed to Allegiations of Islamist terrorism. Salaskan 23:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on account of the title 

message: --Arigato1 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Kimontalk 14:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to "American war crimes"? 

message: That is something that should be mentored to. --Arigato1 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atomic bombs on Japan and use of chemical weapons in Vietnam war. 

message: I would like to suggest that agree to clean up the regional sections to the following format:
Heading with the name of the claimant
Write out the allegation specifically, then spend no more than a paragraph outlining the allegation.  Link to articles detailing the circumstances whenever possible and minimize the paragraph and quotes on this page.
Conclude the section with the outcome of the allegation
This format should provide the reader with a quicker way to read about the allegations and subsequently get details as they see fit.  There should also be a section for groups and notable individuals from within America that have made such allegations.  Again to reinforce the topic, we're talking about facts - facts that allegations have been made - not judging the allegations themselves.
Amxt 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material in the article is well sourced and well written; I don't think it should be removed without being merged into other articles about the incidents discussed. Also, much of this material isn't adequately covered elsewhere.  Merging the material elsewhere would just disperse the material that is causing some editors to believe the article is NPOV or violates SYNT or whatever, so I think that before we move any sections we should try to bring in official US views and other dissenting views where applicable and notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Josh that, given that at the most recent AfD there was no consensus to rename this article "allegations of..." (as I, myself, had mistakenly believed earlier), the first suggestion won't help the article.  I read Amxt's third suggestion as saying that the article should discuss the US's (and other) more recent position on the event in question.  For some of the events, the US has come public about its role, or at least it has made statements distancing itself from certain individuals, which should be noted, even if it is suspect.  Smmurphy(Talk) 04:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless folks disagree, I think the notes about Iran and Syria in the definition of state terrorism section should be removed, there is no context for the references, or explanations at all. Murderbike 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be useful if they were wikilinked to the specific incident being referred (terrorism in Syria and terrorism in Iran have the relevant info, I believe).  This might I think it might work better in the footnotes, though, something like "The United States considers event X an example of state terrorism of type Y, as cited in Z". Smmurphy(Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referring to two different types of state terrorism, it seems redundant to have a def. for State terrorism, as there is already a link to that article two lines above, and a definition of terrorism by proxy would be better than just a link to syria's article, as that article doesn't clarify as easily what state terror "by proxy" actually mean. maybe the paragraph should just distinguish the two, instead of giving vague examples or links to other articles? Murderbike 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, I think that we should avoid basing this article on the definition of terrorism alone.  It is factual that the US categorizes Iran and Syria as state terrorists of certain types, and the reasons why are relatively familiar to many readers, which is why I suggested keeping the link.  You are right, however, that better would be the precise definitions as given by the state department in the US, as well as corresponding level institutions in other countries.  What the dictionary says, IMHO, is a bit more troublesome for an article about terrorism. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Process 

message: ::Unless folks disagree, I think the notes about Iran and Syria in the definition of state terrorism section should be removed, there is no context for the references, or explanations at all. Murderbike 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be useful if they were wikilinked to the specific incident being referred (terrorism in Syria and terrorism in Iran have the relevant info, I believe).  This might I think it might work better in the footnotes, though, something like "The United States considers event X an example of state terrorism of type Y, as cited in Z". Smmurphy(Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referring to two different types of state terrorism, it seems redundant to have a def. for State terrorism, as there is already a link to that article two lines above, and a definition of terrorism by proxy would be better than just a link to syria's article, as that article doesn't clarify as easily what state terror "by proxy" actually mean. maybe the paragraph should just distinguish the two, instead of giving vague examples or links to other articles? Murderbike 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, I think that we should avoid basing this article on the definition of terrorism alone.  It is factual that the US categorizes Iran and Syria as state terrorists of certain types, and the reasons why are relatively familiar to many readers, which is why I suggested keeping the link.  You are right, however, that better would be the precise definitions as given by the state department in the US, as well as corresponding level institutions in other countries.  What the dictionary says, IMHO, is a bit more troublesome for an article about terrorism. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran and Syria links in definition section 

message: Wow, without going into the validity of the content, it's quite clear the contributor(s) to the article feel strongly and emotionally about the content.  That's fine, except it causes the content to lose credibility as it raises a big red flag signaling bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.215.100.191 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought this was a joke page, at first.  I followed the link from "The State terrorism series" box which is on Idi Amin (I just watched The Last King of Scotland).  He uses Iran and Syria in the definition of state terrorism, and yet they aren't on this State Terrorism series list being put on a bunch of articles and yet the USA is?  Quite inconsistent.  And claiming a schoolbus was targeted by the CIA?  And the quotes about the USA killing children which reminds me of Osama Bin laden's speeches where he claims the USA killed children?  I can only say, this is an absurd article.  People claiming their "enemies" are killing children is really pointless to repeat, it is obviously designed to rile people up and contains no factual information. (That fits with this article, even the title of which is designed to rile people up, but it doesn't fit with wikipedia.)  It certainly needs a lot of work to become NPOV --Danny Rathjens 07:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there should be articles in State Terrorism by Iran and Syria, write them. Them not existing does nothing to discredit the claims of US State Terrorism. Murderbike 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles do exist. In fact, they are linked a couple sentence above to another comment you replied to.  Obviously their existence does nothing to counter the point of this section, though.  Which is that the authors' bias clearly shows through with the way it is written(e.g. all the accusations of intentional child-killing with no evidence).  The "state terrorism" series template listing the USA and not Iran or Syria and yet including Iran and Syria in the very definition of state terrorism in this article are just more symptoms of trying to advance a political viewpoint rather than present the facts. --Danny Rathjens 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked articles are for Terrorism in Iran and Syria, not specifically State terrorism, so it seems to me they shouldn't be included in the State Terrorism template. When I get some time tonight I'll do ya the favor of citing some "child-killing" evidence. Unfortunately my expertise is not in the State Terrorism of Iran or Syria, so can only hope that someone else could write those articles. Murderbike 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, after going through the whole article, I found three references to child killing. None of them specified "intentional" child-killing, and the first two are sourced, two the UN, and to the NYT, both reliable sources, right? the third, is in a quote from Hugo Chavez, that I don't personally care about. It's a quote, not an assertion by the article itself. Am I missing something? Murderbike 03:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The author's emotional feeling about the subject quite clear... 

message: The following was moved to the talk page:
:As well, the US maintained economic sanctions against Iraq from 1991 until the 2003 invasion. According the the UN, 500,000 children died as a direct result of the sanctions between 1991 and 1998. In 1996, Madeline Albright made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Asked by Stahl with regards to the effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?". Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
I don't think this fits in as terrorism. 69.150.209.15 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "`Terrorism', according to the FBI, `is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective',"", This is the US's own definition of terrorism, and i'd say that intentionally/knowingly causing the deaths of half a million children (an inarguably "civilian" population in my mind) qualifies. Murderbike 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first key word is "unlawful". Economic sanctions are not unlawful; the USA is not under any obligation to trade with any foreign state except when there is a valid treaty in place. Laws in the USA also allow the US government to seize assets, etc., and those same political techniques are used by foreign nations against the USA all the time. The second key word is "intentionally" from your comment. The USA did not impose sanctions to kill children or anyone else. The USA imposed sanctions as part of a political dispute with the regime in power at that time; the USA wanted IRAQ to comply with UN sanctions. Calling what the USA did "state terrorism" is a useless pursuit that is not supported by balanced evidence. The article is WP:POV because it cites proponents of one point of view and does not include the other. — John Cardinal 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved to talk

message: See: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html
An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, gets protection from the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country. 68.92.159.96 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Include in article:U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq

message: *I'm not sure why this section is included in this article.  According to the definition posted on this page, state terrorism requires the illegal use of force against civilians.  The CIA-trained mujahideen in Afghanistan did not fight civilians, they fought invading Soviet troops. 
*Even if some of those fighters turned out to later fight the Russians in Chechnya, that was not the original intention of the CIA (at least not according to the cited article).  At worst, this is the result of the law of unintended consequences.  If you are going to call CIA training of Chechens state terrorism, then you should also list September 11th (because we funded Osama bin Laden, who later attacked the US).  
If there are not objections, I will remove this section.  --Dchall1 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that there's really THAT much difference, but it definitely sounds more like a proxy war. Murderbike 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Murderbike, I certainly won't argue that it's not a proxy war.  I'm just saying that a proxy war doesn't fit the definition of terrorism as stated in this article.  I think the defining characteristic is that violence has to be directed against civilians, and that did not occur in Afghanistan.  Let me know what you think please... --Dchall1 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghanistan and the "Green Belt"

message: I was reading through this article with the thought in my niaive head that the treatment, and alleged attempted genocide of certain sections of the Native American population in the US territories in the 19th century would be prevelant here, as most of the articles for other countries mention treatment of the civilian population (Cambodia, et al).  I am not the man to write this segment, but would it not make sense for it to be here, especially considering the US governments official apology for the illegal overthrow of the valid Hawaiian government and the proposed apology to the Native American peoples for "unlawful depredations and ill-conceived policies" lending powerful credence to the segment?  Also, it would rationalise the article somewhat, be an anchor of 'relativity' for the rest of these 'allegations' - something to measure the Cuban or Nicaraguan issues against, in the manner of "This has been officially admitted, This is an allegation" to help the NPOV issue.
Bassclef 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. Murderbike 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. mitcho/芳貴 07:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a 'domestic' or 'internal' section: covering the Native American 'Wars', COINTELPRO and anything else I might have missed. LamontCranston 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.Giovanni33 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American 'Wars' need mention? 

message: Why the actions of the United States in Nicaragua are listed as "Allegation" since an International Court found the United States guilt. That should be listed as something like "List of Terrorism Activities". ClaudioMB 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not an allegation 

message: Have tagged this article as being totally disputed, because as written, it is totally a propaganda piece for cited leftist sources.  The factual accuracy of the article is tilting way to the left, with no balance from mainstream sources. Yaf 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you try to improve it then? --Guinnog 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comments are not helpful unless you can be specific. What problem specifically do you see, and what is your proposed solution to address it?Giovanni33 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am going through the sources; for example, the claim of harming US citizens was not covered in the cited source given for it in the lede.  The plan being considered was to assassinate Cubans living in the US, which incidentally appears never to have been done.  There appears to be a lot of POV pushing, well beyond what the facts of the sources can validate, that permeate this entire article. Yaf 06:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Giovanni33, can you please discuss edits like this before you made them? Thanxs. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind...seems like there was a huge discussion in top of this section. Sorry about that. ;) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record those were not my edits. I simply restored them since I felt the arguments presented for their removal were lacking. The section about these particular accusations needs to be expanded, I think, with some proper qualification about this particular allegation, followed by more than those sources provided. I've held off on retoring this to avoid edit warring, but will definitely be restoring the section pending further discussion above. I'm open to be convinced it doesn't belong, but so far I don't see any valid arguments.Giovanni33 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed tagline

message: I reverted because of NPOV violations. An example is the current paragraphs which reads:
"...of sponsoring state terrorism by funding, training and harboring terrorists and also for other similar activities which are interpreted as terrorism according to international law and even US definitions. The United States government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens." These statements are supported by the sources, and the article defines these terms according to their usage by the sources. 
It is being replaced by this:
"...of sponsoring state terrorism by funding, training, and harboring freedom fighters that some Governments consider terrorists. The United States Government has also been accused of preparing plans of terrorism against its own ships, which were never implemented."
There are several problems with this change. First of all it introduces the concept of "freedom fighters" which is a POV term and is not supported by any source. This article is about terrorism as the term is defined. If you have a source that calls the kind of terrorism the article talks about as "freedom fighters" then you need to supply that for it to be considered. The POV pushing is blatent as after you state this POV as a fact, you then say that "some government" call them terrorists. What are some govternments, which implies that most governments don't regard them as terrorists? That is not only not supported by any source you provide, but its not accurate and its POV pushing. Also, you remove the basis of the defintion by removing  "under international law, and US definitions. Why remove that essential piece of information? Lastly, you mention one particular incident of the US planning terrorism against its own citizens, the sinking of ships---but that is just one example given by the source, not the only one. And you change the meaning in doing so.
If you disagree, then at least please get community consensus for the change first before making it again, or other such controverisal major edits affecting the crafting of the current languge. Your minor tweaks, as before, I don't have a problem with.Giovanni33 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the removal of the portion "according to international law and even US definitions." is that I tagged it several days ago as needing a citation.  None were provided, and, worse yet, the needing citation tag was removed by  you.  I simply deleted the uncited POV. On the other hand, if there are items that need to be cited, then by all means, please tag them, rather than doing a wholesale reversion to remove all contributions, to restore it to the original, flawed, state, as you have been insisting on doing.  Let's make this a better, balanced article, and not a propaganda piece for dictatorships and communistic fringe governments.  Thank you. Yaf 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see such a tag, but that is not a convincing reason since the source is clearly provided in the article, which goes in to supporting details and greater depth. Here is a source that rendered a verdict per international law making the US the only state to be found by the international court as guility of terrorism: http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html. The source references the applicable laws that define the governments activities as such. The US law statement is also supported in the article with its own section that is very clear. But, if you felt it needed to be linked to the source at the top as well, then why not do so instead deleting it completely? That doesnt make the article better.Giovanni33 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps instead of freedom fighters it could say revolutionaries instead. It is a generally accurate descriptor of what some consider to be a freedom fighter, and it avoids taking a specific POV.--LWF 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a good source that says that, and then it should be presented to the specific cases that the articles discuss. However, the two words mean diferent things and are not synonymous. Since the title and subject of the article is about terrorism, we should not substitute that terminology in the opening by using other terms that carry other meanings. Terrorism has a very specific meaning; it's a tactic, and it's not synonymous with revolution or revolutionaries (although the tactic can and has been employed by all groups). The terrorists that are used as examples of agents or facillitators of state sponored terrorism (esp. of the US), I think, are not generallly regarded as revolutionaries (but reactionaries), but I'm willing to include such alternative descriptions provided its attributed to a proper source, and with the understanding that being a revolutionary does not rule out one also being a terrorist, nor vise-versa: being a revolutionary does not necessarily make one a terrorist. In anycase, all POV's (except real fringe views) should be properly presented with proper weight, wihout taking sides.Giovanni33 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added s source for Pres. Reagan calling "terrorists" freedom fighters, that provides a cite for using the language of freedom fighters in place of revolutionaries.  Freedom fighters is probably a more accurate description, as the groups supported by the US usually represent a faction that is trying to counter a dictatorship or a repressive human rights regime, but which are considered terrorists in these regimes.  As there are only such Governments mentioned in the article later (i.e., Cuba, et al) this seems more factually accurate. Yaf 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have not address the problems I raised above, but you are also not accurate. The US govt. has supported terrorism of factions fighting democratically elected governments, supporting coups against them to install right wing dictatorships. But more to the point, the source doesn't call "terrorists" freedom fighters. What it does do, is simply state that Reagan called the Mujahedin "freedom fighters." So what? Now, if we have a section or sentence in this article that deals with the Mujahedin, then you are free to state that they are viewed by some conservative US politicians, such as Regan, as "freedom fighters." That would be acceptable. However, this is not what you have done, as shown above. Simply citing that Regan called this particular group by that term does not logically follow that one should change the language of the introduction of an article that does not even deal with that subject. This article is about the most powerful State conducting terrorism, i.e. against civilians, directly and indirectly--not about "freedom fighters" fighting against oppressive regimes. So, besides bing a bit off topic, it doesnt belong in the introduction, but only maybe in specifics if you have sources that give this description to those agents that the article labels as terrorists.Giovanni33 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Mujahedin were called terrorists by the governments that were in place at the time that had allied with the Soviets.  This is precisely the topic of the article.  As for the examples extant in the article at this point in time (e.g., the Governments that are listed later) all are rather well known as being dictatorships and/or communist governments and/or oppressive regimes.  Intellectual honesty is all that I am asking for here, to balance the decidedly WP:SYN that is tilting rather to the left as the article still stands.  It is still "totallydisputed" worthy at this point, for the later unbalanced content.  Yaf 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afganistand and the Mujahedin are not even mentioned int his article. You are making a false jump in logic, applying one concept to another based on a false premise, and this is a true violation of WP:SYN--so even if it were true, has to be rejected. However, the premise itself of your argument--a point you've made several times--that because the only governments mentioned are oppressive, therefore those "terrorist" activities against them are properly deemed "feedom fighters" per the logic of the Regan quote (which itself is an actual and real WP:SYN violation) itself does not stand as even true. The point itself is false. The Sandinista government was democratic, and established democratic elections. They overthrew the Somoza dictatorship which was installed by the US, after the US assasinating the independence leader Sandino earlier. A similar story goes for Guatamala, as it does for the democratically-elected Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, mentioned by the article. So what are you talking about? Your claim is simply false, and thus your point is not supported by it.Giovanni33 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't classify Cuba as being a bastion of liberty, and it makes up the bulk of the later content.  Neither would I classify (historically, not necessary currently) the countries of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, or Cambodia, all of which are mentioned later in the article.  As for the Sandinista government, well that depends on an interpretation of just who was reading the ballots :-)  Much the same issue could have been made for Guatamala.  As some are fond of pointing out, even Hitler was democratically elected, and the US certainly supported the underground in Europe to counter him.  No doubt, these underground forces were all considered terrorists by the German officers charged with suppressing the "freedom fighters" of WW II, as well as by the French Vichy government.  Leaving out the balance of "freedom fighter" in the lede is not being intellectually honest in an article as charged as this one.  Yaf 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The the consistency of your arguments is evolving again. You claimed consistently that, the "Governments that are listed.. are all well known as being dictatorships... repressive human rights regimes...only such Governments mentioned in the article (i.e., Cuba, et al) this seems more factually accurate." However, I point out this is not the case,  and therefore, your conclusion should be now be that its therefore "not a factually accurate" description. But, instead your POV pushign comes out even more, when you further stretch logic by saying, "well that depends on an interpretation of just who was reading the ballots." Is this your own personal POV based on your own original research, or are you just making up any excuse you can think of? I know of no such study that disputed the election results of these governments, which were attacked and funded by terrorism stemming from the United States. Reality doesnt fit into your POV, it would seem, so you want to distort the reporting of this article to try to make it fit something that is fundamentally not applicable across the board. Intellectual honesty, indeed! Btw, Hitler did not support elections or the democratic process by any means. I don't think that history lesson is needed here, besides this is all off topic again, and an example of your own OR and SYN violations, which your edits have been based on--even IF they were accurate. Again, the solution is to apply the alternate description to the particular section(s) in question-- if its supported by a good source.Giovanni33 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest changes by Yaf

message: This article has some serious POV issues. I removed this link: Overseas expansion of the United States here, and someone has restored it. By definition, it is a violation of NPOV. This whole article is borderline (and I am giving benefit of the doubt) violating synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. This whole article needs to be cleaned up. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that link doesn't belong here, and I will remove it, unless anyone has any objection. I'm not sure who restored it. Over seas expansion, US imperialism, is not the same thing as terrorism, although the latter is often used as a tactic of the former.Giovanni33 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you restored it, along with removing all the other edits that have been made to try and improve this article.  The entire article still needs some serious editing to insert balance and to remove the WP:SYN that currently permeates it.  Have been trying to make this a better article, but it is hard when POV warriors keep removing all attempts to fix the problems and restoring the original, flawed content.  Please assume good faith, in accordance with WP:AGF, rather than deleting all attempts at improving the article.  Thank you. Yaf 04:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I removed that link because there was a valid reason for removing it. However, your removals were not valid as explained above. Yes, there needs to be improvement here, howevetr, your edits have been to make the article worse, and violates NPOV. We don't need POV pushing here of any sort. Please review NPOV policies, and stick to claims that sources support. Also, rather than edit waring, please read above which states that major edits that are controversial and opposed, such as yours, need to be discussed here first to gain some kind of consensus. Please do that if you are serious about improving this article.Giovanni33 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The edits are entirely valid, and are factual.  They are not major edits, either, except perhaps in San Francisco :-)  Lets make this a better article, and one that is balanced, and that is not so far out on the left wing political spectrum.  Thank you. Yaf 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your major edits are not valid and are a SYN, OR, and POV violation, as explained above. They are also not factual, and can not stand as you are making them. I offered a solution for how to incorporate your POV in a nuetral manner, but if you insist on deleting sourced material and substituting your own OR, then you will be reverted.Giovanni33 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do change it back. It's horribly POVish the way the title reads now. And "freedom fighters" has been so overused and misapplied that it's nearly worthless as a description. In my mind, there are insurgents (who follow the rules of war) and terrorists (who don't).  Dchall1 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The title is still terribly POVish and presupposes that the US is guilty of all allegations, as well as of the one "proven" case that is by a court with questionable jurisdiction. Yaf 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem as I see it is that this article contains a combinations of allegations of state terrorism, but also state terrorism that is established fact as adjudicated by the international court, so its some of these claims of state terrorism are no longer merely allegations but proven and established dejuro events. I corrected the Syn problem that Yaf keeps inserting. If there are more of such violations, please point them out.Giovanni33 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I made a lot of changes, mostly to the introduction. They incorporate elements of both versions that are currently being reverted. Also, I removed the paragraph on who makes allegations and why. It assumes a lot, and doesn't say much that isn't self-evident. Going forward, instead of wholesale reverts, can we work off the article the way it stands now? Thanks --Dchall1 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll work with that, and accept the framework of a compromise, which I think can lead to some progress. I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I tweaked your change a bit to included the metion of US defintion as well, since that is an important part of the article, in its section below. Also, the mention of the terrorism plots, I restored, since those are valid references that support its inclusion. I agree to leave your changes about removing who makes the allegations, as that is elaborated on specifically in the article.Giovanni33 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise, I can work with that as well.  Have started with the current state and cleaned up some of the minor grammar tweaks that kept getting reverted, as well, during the last several days.  Surely we can agree on these :-)  Yaf 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be possible to write a good article on notable notable allegations of state terrorism. As State terrorism by the United States this is an editorial essay. The content reflects this: a selective collection of allegations and factoids chosen to advance a thesis. At a minimum, it should be renamed to 'allegations.' Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others earlier on expressed concerns on the title. If there are no major objections, I'll correct it to what it was previously. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and did the move. Tom Harrison Talk 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs cleanup

message: Chomsky and Chossudovsky do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards.  Please see WP:RS.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they do. Prof. Chomsky is an academic, scholar, and public intellectual of the highest caliber. The many volumes of his publications on these very subjects speak for themselves. But, if you have some better souces you'd like to add that present the facts under examination, I'd welcome looking at that. So far your POV edits on this article have been rather ridiculous, btw.Giovanni33 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read our policies on reliable sources.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources -- see WP:REDFLAG.  Our policies (WP:SPS)also provide that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field."  The problem here, is that Chomsky is a linguist, not a foreign policy expert, so books he's written about foreign policy are not reliable under the WP:SPS standard.  WP:Verifiability requires that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Further, the same policy provides that "sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves."  Chomsky and Chossudovsky's books are not fact-checked and there is no objective editorial oversight of their work, as there would be for spaded academic works in a particular academic discipline.  As a comparison, Chomsky's works are probably subject to such editorial oversight in his field of expertise, which is linguistics, and could be relied upon here as authority for matter discussing linguistics.  Lastly, WP:Verifiability provides that:  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  So, the burden is on you to prove that Chomsky and Chossudovsky's works meet our policy requirements, not me.  Simply put, they don't meet our standards.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments.
If you can get that statement deleted from that article then the editors of this page shall consider whether or not we should delete the Chomsky sources from this one.  Otherwise, there is simply no reason to consider your assertion, here.  Googling "Noam Chomsky" returns such a huge array of hits from top-tier sources all over the planet that there is just no argument you can advance to justify this latest suggestion of yours.  Stone put to sky 09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Chossudovsky is past president of the Canadian Association of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He is a member of research organisations that include the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER), the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) (Paris)and the International People's Health Council (IPHC).
Clearly, this is a widely published and active Academic who is well-informed about the international activities of the U.S.   Chossudovsky has already published books critical of the U.S. "War on Terrorism", and the sources provided there are not controversial. 
His academic and public appointments and publishing status are already weighty qualifications in and of themselves.  Unless you can provide some sort of clear justification for excising his work from the article, then the WP you cite provide e no justification for removing it.  Stone put to sky 09:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You yammer on and on, but you still didn't address the Wikipedia policy issues I've described above.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What on earth are you talking about?  Chomsky is a professor of linguistics, not foreign policy.  He's an expert in linguistics.  Quit pretending otherwise.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, he's a Professor in the Department of Linguistics -- he can be relied upon as a reputable source for matters pertaining to Linguistics.  With respect to other areas, he's merely a commentator, not an expert, and can't be relied upon as an objective source.  In fact, he's a partisan, not an academic, in areas outside of Linguistics.  That's like saying we should rely upon the head of the RNC for factual data about WMDs in Iraq -- can't do it under WP:RS and WP:Verify standards.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: We were making progress with a compromised version in the introduction. The first two are compromised wordings. The first one below is by Merzbow. The second one is mine, which I wanted to improve upon, but not dispute the essentials of the way it was put, per the compromise. The last one is Mongo's, which was recently reverted back to. 
My changes to Merzbow's, was to add to the statement that ends simply in"...who in engage in terrorism" a grounding in established definitions: "according to" such and such definition. Also, note that both accurately make the point that some scholars deem the US as having been found guilty of state sponsored terrorism, legally, by virtue of the ruling of the highest court in the world, the ICJ.  Now look at the third version recently installed by Mongo. Note the disagreement is not that that the activities of those individuals are in fact terrorism or not--its not that they should not be labeled as terrorism or not--given the proper definition that such activities fall under. That is not in dispute. The disputed part was making clear the link between the US complicity in these very terrorist activities, and that having been found guilty of "unlawful force" in Nicaragua constituted having been found guilty of state sponsored terrorism in a legal court of law. Again, both the first and second version make these points clear, and the relation between them in a NPOV and proper manner. However, now look at the recently installed version. It completely the meaning by wiping out these  distinctions and confusing them into one issue. The carefully worded points made above are lost.
1. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism.[1][2][3] Some scholars say that the U.S. should be legally considered a sponsor of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice has found it guilty of the "unlawful use of force".[4]
2. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups whose activities qualify as state sponsored terrorism according to both international law and the US' own internal definitions.[1][2][3] Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. can be legally deemed a sponsor of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of the "unlawful use of force".[4]
3. The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups whose activities qualify as state sponsored terrorism, according to linguistics professor Noam Chomsky, and several other people.[1][2][3] This is based largely on the International Court of Justice's findings in the case of Nicaragua vs. United States, in which the court found the U.S. guilty of "unlawful use of force".[4]
Giovanni33 06:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody has an opinion about what does and does not qualify as terrorism, which is why I prefer to see any such implications represented as opinion in the text. That's why I like #1, which is also the most direct and unambiguous. If we want to explicitly name the case (Nicaragua vs. US) in that also, then sure. Naming or not naming the scholars is fine by me. but if we want to use the term "some scholars", we should also add a cite by somebody else in addition to Chomsky who makes the same ICJ accusation. Right now, I think only he is cited. (Since I'm almost 100% sure that there are others who have made this same accusation I'm OK with leaving it as "some scholars" for a little while until a second cite can be found). - Merzbow 07:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that change, and its certainly better than what we currently have. Can you make the change? Thanks. And, if others disagree, I'd hope that you can talk about it here before reverting, again.Giovanni33 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Completely in support of #1 - let's hope it's a move forward that stays! Bassclef 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The USA does actually  train and arm people who commit acts of terrorism.  i beleive its called al queda or some such, whom the USA trained and armed with CIA combat  expertise and weapons in order to screw with russian oil interests in the region ( at the time) Charred Feathers 08:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Versions

message: Would it be possible to start discussing our edits while not reverting those of others. Thank you. You may use this page for that.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: The article is protected for one week. If you are ready to resume editing before that, or to contest this action, please place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not up on the finer workings of wikipedia, how would I go about asking that the Strategy of tension be linked to in addition to Operation Gladio in the Western Europe sub? LamontCranston 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected