Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 4

message: Seab, I'd roll it back for now. From the policy...
Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a  case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatantly unsuitable content.
In the following specific cases, an exception is made:
* Adding a  or  template
* Adding a link to Wikipedia:accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article.
* Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.
* Reverting to a favored version, as described above.
* Correcting spelling mistakes or typos.
Special caution is needed in editing permanently and semi-permanently protected pages. In nearly all cases, administrators should not make substantial changes to pages protected for legal reasons, excepting cases of obvious trolling and/or vandalism. Because of their visibility and importance, most MediaWiki namespace pages should be approached with extreme caution and only by those who adequately understand the consequences of their changes.
Edits can be made to already protected pages via  requests.</i>
Perhaps you should post to AN/I asking for input on this (no offense to anyone else on this talk page or that will wander along that HAS contributed; none of us are non-biased enough on either side to judge). Barring that I'd say just roll it back for now, so things don't turn into a blow up. rootology (T) 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First:I raised the issue on the talk page before action (see archive). Second:The removal of six words is not a 'substantial change'. Third: this is certainly a case of "obvious trolling and/or vandalism". I stand by my edit. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added the reason, namely credibility, that I prefaced Gasner with 9/11 scholars for truth. I object to the continual referral of my edit as trolling or vandalism, because its neither. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FULL]]

message: Tom has requested it be unprotected here. 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we have our input on the strawpolls for a few days before unprotecting it.--Kalsermar 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a seconded there. rootology (T) 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: It can be suspected that UK families/individuals who have emigrated to the United States and are active constituents are also busy "in their spare time" attempting to find a connection between Pennsylvania historical German immigrants/afficionados and the World War bombings of the UK, judging from the amount of "telephone terrorism" prevalent within the United States.  15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  past bombings in the United Kingdom 

message: Morton devonshire got the article unprotected. Wow.  What next?  What should we, as a group do?  Any suggestions? Is there anything we can do to avoid the article being protected again?  Please, lets focus on what we can personally do, not what others should do.  I personally think I need to try really hard for the next couple of days to let others decide were the article is going. So best of luck with the article gentlemen (and ladies).  Travb (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions?  Yes, follow Wikipedia policy in making edits: WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:Verify.  Tschüss!  Morton devonshire 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself am going to wait 4 days, however if this wealth of sources supporting all of these "allegations" is not provided I am gonig to start removing items again that do not contain sources citing specifically allegations of terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest you tag the sentences that should have sources in the meantime, to allow other editors to search for references? Addhoc 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the archive I am not gonig through this again. Everything on Cuba needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism. Since you seem to be appearing after the debate you may want to review the archvies for which sections are contested as no source has bene provided yet for anything since unprotection. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Cuba, James Bramford's quote does mention terrorism. Also, the debate on this page was at least to some extent invatation only, with named persons invited to vote. Anyway, I am reasonably familiar with the archive. Addhoc 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Zerofaults is correct here. Now that the page is unlocked, everything that doesn't directly refer to "allegations of state terrorism" should be removed, including the present Cuba material. Though I would have more confidence in the evenhanded approach of editors if the same standards were applied to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state which at present is a farce. --Zleitzen 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that material not supported by citation should be removed. I'm merely suggesting that some indication, possibly using tags, would be helpful. Regarding the Cuba material, James Bramford's quote does mention terrorism. Addhoc 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary claims need numerous citiations, further there are 3 things being accused there and the other do not contain accusations against the US of terrorism. One states the person is a terrorist, and a CIA agent, not that the US supported his terrorist acts or told him to do them. The other states that the US took in 2 terrorists, however it also states they were not found guilty of terrorism just accused of it by Cuba and when they were released from prison it was on immigration charges, not terrorism charges. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuba accusing the U.S. of terrorism, isn't remotely extraordinary. If a CIA agent in the employ of the U.S. was commiting acts that are considered by others to be terrorism, this clearly has relevance to this article. Addhoc 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A white police officers beating a black man does not mean the state authorized the beating of black men. See the problem? You are assuming outside of the source provided that the man was working under CIA official orders. The source does not state this. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is "Cuban forces capture a CIA agent Carlos Antonio Rodriguez Cabo, alias El Gallego, who has orders to unify different internal resistance groups and has been accused of committing various acts of terrorism." In your analogy, if the police officer had orders to beat someone, the state would clearly be responsible. Addhoc 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the quote states, he was not ordered to commit terrorism, he was ordered to "unify different internal resistance groups" Again, the source does not state he was commiting terrorism on behalf of the United States, it actually says what he was suppose to be doing, which isnt terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting the CIA agent was acting independently of the U.S. Government. If your POV is that he wasn't involved in terrorism, that's fine. However, the POV of the Cuban government is that he was involved in terrorism and that's what the article says. Addhoc 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There in lies the confusion, this article is about US terrorism and allegations of it. There is no allegation of this being a case of US terrorism, its a case of a US citizen being a terrorist. As noted in my example, if the police are sent out to write tickets and instead beat a black man, that does not mean that they were sent out to beat black men. HE acted independantly of the US government and the source does not say he was acting on behalf of the government. The problem is not that the events did not happen, its that the source does not prove the allegation exists, which is the problem with most of the article, the source prove something happened, just not the existence of an allegation of US terrorism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the quote implies he was acting independently of the U.S. government. The article says "According to the Cuban government's 'Centro de Estudios Sobre America. "Crisis de Octubre: Cronologia." Informe Especial', a CIA agent named Carlos Antonio Rodriguez Cabo committed various acts of terrorism." which is reasonable. Addhoc 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the quote says there is an allegation against the US, its WP:OR for you to assume that because he is a CIA agent its an act by the US when the source does not state that. I just explained and gave you an example on why its even logically flawed. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea, in this context I propose removing the sentences currently tagged as citation required. Addhoc 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Tom Harrison Talk 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree we should avoid original research, also that all material should be supported by references and that allegations should not be presented as fact. Regardless, I am suggesting the sentences currently tagged should be removed. Addhoc 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I propose deleting these tagged sentences on Tuesday, unless references are found. Addhoc 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I have opened the mediation request for this page, (as you can see here), and I am very interested in the content in dispute. I would like all parties in the case to come within the next 72 hours to discuss a possible resolution. I also would like some more details about what has been going on here, and quickly. The faster we can get this solved, the better. Please feel free to contact me, WikieZach| talk 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDIATION-page under review 

message: I think part of the reason the Cuba section comes off as original research is the length.  Would you consider cutting it down to 3 or 4 sentences -- paraphrasing the allegations.  In that way, it wouldn't seem like you are trying to argue that these things WERE terrorism, but merely making a bland description of the allegations by the Cuban government.  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Morton's idea would be a good comprimise, as long as no weasel words are in the 3 to 4 sentences. I will add Morton's suggestion to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America. Nice job. Travb (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I encourage all users to visit: 
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America.  I am not sure the rules about who adds comprimises etc, but User:Wikizach is taking care of the case, who is an experienced mediator. Tom's has already listed a comprimise, and I will add Morton's comprimise too. 
Please also take the time to share your opinion on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls.  I don't understand why some of us have hestitated to share your opinion.  This strawpoll was created by Kalsermar, encouraged by User:Zer0faults, and follows my own complex straw poll, so it had support from all sides.  Thank you for those who have taken the time to share their opinion on the straw poll.
I want to congratulate user Morton, user Tom, and user Kalsermar for their excellent suggestions.  They are reminding me that I should try to be more diplomatic and comprimising myself. Thank you all. Travb (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An excellent mediation had began

message: OK I've drafted my Cuba section - sorry to preempt by removing Northwoods but I don't believe that it constitutes "allegations of state terrorism" ie. no one has alleged that these very vague and unformed theories by imaginative government figures actually became "state terrorism". Some may not like the rewrite, it may seem wordy and long but its actually a huge reduction of the never ending allegations trotted out by the Cubans everytime a government figure has opened his mouth in the last 40 years. These allegations play a huge part in Cuban life and should not be underestimated. 
I've laid it out as an example of how I believe the information on this page should be presented, ie."Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba ... blah blah blah." citation..citation..citation. What do these allegations centre around? blah blah blah, citation..citation..citation. Keep the page name, present the allegations, as per Tom Harrison who seems to have a good handle on things and Bob's your uncle. I'm done on this page, enjoy the mediation and don't make me come down here again:)--Zleitzen 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Where's it posted?  Morton devonshire 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the page, Morton.--Zleitzen 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba

message: I advertised our straw poll here: Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles.  
 
The straw poll is here: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls.  Please take the time to share your views. Travb (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to tell everyone "thanks" for taking the time to participate in the straw poll.Travb (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just too bad only 2-3 things actually got a concensus. Well in time more people will chime in I am sure. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Zer0faults.Travb (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "...do they lose their voice in changing the page later?" No. Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom, I didnt know.  I hope you take the time to share your opinion. Travb (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN STRAW POLL

message: If wikiusers don't participate in the straw poll, despite many repeated invitations, can they later argue against the consensus on the straw poll page? In otherwords, if wikiusers neglect to participate, despite repeated invitations, do they lose their voice in changing the page later? Travb (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...do they lose their voice in changing the page later?" No. Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tom, I didnt know.  I hope you take the time to share your opinion. Travb (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the straw poll

message: If you look at the sorid history of Zionist_political_violence, which was once Zionist_terrorism it is erie how it is a mirror image of this article. 
You have the "pro-Israeli" side and the "anti-Israeli" side. 
*The "pro-Israeli" side feels like the article should be deleted, and the "pro-Israeli" side uses the exact same language as the "pro-US" side here.   
*Then their is the "anti-Israeli" who uses the exact same language as the "anti-US" side here. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism. 
*There is a group who want to appease the "pro-Israeli" side and change the name to "alleged".  This "alleged" title suggestion is throughout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism, (nevermind that it violates WP:AWW).  
Somehow, someway, after this AfD, the users decided to change the title from Zionist_terrorism to Zionist_political_violence.  
The Zionist_political_violence page is currently locked due to vandalism, but the vicious edit war and verbal war has decreased immensely, see: Talk:Zionist_political_violence and compare it to the vitriol, contention and vicious bickering on: 
*Talk:Israeli terrorism 
*Talk:Israeli terrorism/archive1
*Talk:Israeli_terrorism/archive2  
*Talk:Zionist terrorism/archive1
I have requested these people's help:  
Talk:Zionist_political_violence#I_write_this_comment_out_of_sheer_desperation:_want_to_change_a_terrorism_title
How can we learn from their mistakes? Travb (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we learn from other's mistakes?