Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 13

message: I added the term terrorism to this article because as it is defined: violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. I know this will be reverted by some biased pro-American. I suggest we discuss this. Thanks SeiteNichtGefunden 22:38 08/07/2007 (GMT)
Once again, this accusation of "terrorism" is the typical "out of context" comment. The ENTIRE war was terrorism!! Ask about it to citizens of Chongqing, Nanking and Changde and Manila who were bombed, raped, killed and plagued....Maybe you should begin by looking to the vivisections performed on humans by Shiro Ishii. Do we need to add the word "terrorism" to all these articles ?!--Flying tiger 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since this person chose not to answer, I guess I will answer for you.  Any state act of war would also be a state act of terrorism, since it is meant to induce terror on the survivors.  Since "Dissent Magazine" is being used as a "reputable source", I guess we can next allow the magazine of Neo-Nazi's to be used as proof that Germany was an innocent victim in WWII.  I was under the impression that extreme claims needed extreme documentation.  I will not revert it, but it seems like we will soon see the Burning of Washington by the British, the Burning of Atlanta by the Union, the Fall of Carthage, and every other act or war generalized into an act of terrorism.  The fact that some cannot see the difference between 9/11 and an act of war is stunning.  The fact that they can then criticise those that can see the difference is even more stunning. CodeCarpenter 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American bias 

message: Strange that Michael Walzer is chosen as a source.  After all, this is a man that feels the bombing of Dresden was justified, because it saved the lives of Jews, but that the bombing of Hiroshima is not, because it only saved the lives of Americans and Chinese.  http://www.nplusonemag.com/walzer.html has a review of one of his books, which details this hypocrasy.  In addition, since Walzer is an editor of Dissent Magazine, he op-ed piece is not what would be considered a reliable source, since it proclaims in advance that it is promoting an opinion.  And, the style guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories says "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community."  Using an Op-Ed piece in an opinion magazine as it it were a reliable source is a real stretch of
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.  To quote there: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people."  Creating a term like war terrorism out of an article that the author himself states "This is not going to be a straightforward and entirely coherent argument.", and is so non-notable that even the magazine's own website doesn't show a link to the Winter 2002 issue (see http://www.dissentmagazine.org/archive.php).  And therefore, this removal causes the rest of the house of cards to fall as well.  I will not revert, since I am not one of the regulars here, but I would suggest that the regulars review the standards for this link and others in this batch of inclusions. CodeCarpenter 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walzer as a source