Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 12

message: Since there was no consensus for Divestment/Travb/anon's page more from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to State terrorism by the United States, what is the justification for its continuing to be under that title? Note that I am not asking if there is a consensus to restore it to Allegations of.... I am asking what justification there is, absent consensus for the previous move, for it to remain under this title. Tom Harrison Talk 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support a move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. east.718 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not have a problem with the current title (I do not know the history of when it was moved from that to this), but I have a feeling that more people are comfortable with the "Allegations of..." title based on earlier straw polls and numerous comments in the AfD (I think somewhere I also saw a suggestion to begin the title with "Alleged..." which is about the same thing but more succinct).  If folks want to move to one of these titles, or if there is a creative suggestion for an alternate title which would not fundamentally alter the meaning of this article as some previous suggestions would have, then I am all for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course. - Merzbow 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add, though I assume this is what Tom is trying to do, that we should come to some form of consensus before any page move happens, unlike, apparently, earlier page moves.  Not that everyone will agree obviously, but let's be sure to let everyone who wants to weigh in and, if we are going to move it, let's determine which specific wording we want to use (I think "alleged" might actually be better, for example).  Obviously just because earlier moves were done without discussion does not mean we should repeat that mistake.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asking for a vote to restore the title. I am asking on what basis it is being kept at the current title, since there was no consensus to move it here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I did not see Tom's edit of his comment before I posted that last note.  I disagree with Tom and do think it's better to talk this out and come to some consensus (which I think will be for a page move) rather than moving this unilaterally (even if it was moved without consensus before, I don't know whether that is true or not or what the lengthy move history of this page is). If we can come to a bit if agreement I think it would help us move forward on the article generally if a number of editors can agree on a change together. Still I'll try to answer his question.  I think the main argument/justification for this title is that it is common to use a straightforward title even if a topic is controversial, i.e. rather than titling this "allegations of" the article should simply make it clear that the idea that there is something called "state terrorism by the United States" is highly contested and by no means an established fact.  For example we have an article called Resurrection appearances of Jesus rather than Alleged Resurrection appearances of Jesus, even though obviously there are only "allegations" (though that's kind of a weird way to say it) that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and obviously it is very controversial.  That's my view on it, though others may articulate a stronger rationale, as keeping this title as opposed to moving it to alleged or allegations of is not crucial for me. Also obviously there is some precedence for the latter formulations, such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a move to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" per above and precedent. AgentFade2Black 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another AfD would obviously fail (the previous one was commented upon by dozens of editors, most of whom were not canvassed) so I do hope that strategy is not pursued.  The closing admin specifically noted that "AfD is and has shown not to be the solution." MONGO, which name change would you be interested in?  That's what we're discussing in this section.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Actually, we are discussing the justification for the name change made by Travb and his sock account. There wasn't any. I'll try to come up with a name change suggesting and am considering different ones now.--MONGO 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We have already had a name change, against consensus, from Allegation of...' to State terrorism by.... Since that was forced against consensus, that name change should be undone. Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.Ultramarine 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: move. The title without "allegations" is just too POV.--SefringleTalk 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, it really would not bother me to change the title, but I did respond to Tom's question as to an argument for why this title is appropriate, and perhaps others will as well.  Rather than simply "undoing" a name change that happened some time back (even if it was against consensus) I think we should come to some agreement about what the name of this article should be.  Think of this article as having "no title" at this point and we are trying to figure out what the title will be right here right now.  I think most folks will weigh in in favor of "allegations of..." (that's the direction of the current comments) but other options might emerge.  We don't have to rush this, let's give people a chance to weigh in and try to come to a conclusion in the next day or two.  I think we can work together on this and therefore should really make an effort to do so--this is my main point.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to moving to "Allegations of" as such but I object to such a move as it avoids the current requirement of unambiguous claims. The article can legitimately be easily expanded to many times it's current size if we include allegations as well as what is currently included. Such a title also makes most opposing views irrelevant. Those editors opposing claims now would not have a leg to stand on when argueing for exclusion of material. Wayne 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly, what is currently included is little more than opinions, not facts. The problem with this article is that until the radical POV is removed from here, it is an egregious violation of multiple policies.--MONGO 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets clean it up then. I agree, though, that the title should be moved back to reflect the consensus, and that the focus and content of the entry should be worked out here on Talk. TewfikTalk 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like it.  Is "Allegations of" better than "Alleged?"  I know the former is the old title, but the latter strikes me as more succinct. Whatever people prefer is fine with me. And I think Wayne makes a good point above, i.e. we should agree that if we change the title to "allegations," this does not lower the bar for inclusion of material. I think there's still obviously disagreement about what can be included and what cannot, but the point is that any old "allegation" cannot be thrown in there--they have to come from notable sources at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there's unanimous support for this, I'll go ahead and move it. Someone else has to do it later, CSD's really backed up now. east.718 08:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do apologise, I missed this discussion. If this is truly the consensus I'll move it back, even though I personally think (and have said so several times) that this is a lousy title. --John 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer the current title, but I do think editors clearly favor the "allegations of" title and therefore we should move it there. This thread has been around for a few days so I think people have had time to comment if they want to, and the consensus seems to be for a move.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There was never a consensus for the move to 'State terrorism by...' and it does need to go back to Allegations of...' Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you selectively forget the sorid history of this page. There has never been consensus to do anything. We had a straw poll on this (which has been archived), and no one agreed on the title. MONGO, who supports this move, clearly states that he simply wants to delete this page. I never canvassed at all in the last AFD.  Ask Morton about the rules about canvassing.  He ws once blocked then unblocked for what I did. I simply let other know about the latest AfD by the group of deletionist here, who will never, ever stop until this page is deleted, becuase it does not match their own POVs. Divestment 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far East718, John, me, and Pablothegreat85 have moved the page to Allegations of... User:Uga Buga Man, now blocked as a sock, also moved the page - and I don't see how you of all people can complain about a special-purpose account moving the page. Tom Harrison Talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Divestment this discussion was ongoing for a few days and you could have spoken up sooner, or even complained here on talk after the move was made, but instead you chose to move it back without discussion. Obviously a lot of people who support the name change are in favor of deletion, but others who supported seem interested in working on the article. Though I preferred to keep this title, there is no question in my mind that most editors supported a move. If one skims through the last AfD--which saw a huge number of comments from outside editors--it is apparent that many folks supported a title change. I think we have to respect that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title reads as if the US is making the accusations.  Rewording would most definately be in order.  Maybe Allegations of United States Terrorism or Allegations of United States State Terrorism or Allegations of State Terrorism Committed by the United States.  I don't know, it just seems to me that the title would imply they are the accusers.Wiegrajo 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: UltraMarine added back contested material from the Anti-Chomsky reader, again. This has been discussed at length, and its addition is opposed by several editors. I reverted it. However, Mongo has restored it under the rational that rebutting POV arguments is required for NPOV. Yes, I agree. However, he may not be arware of the reason why it was removed, and the extesive discussion about why it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong because it DOES NOT reubutt any arguments. It only attacks Chomsky. It does not even belong in the sections its being put under. 
It does not follow logically to included material just to attack the author, instead of the relevant question/POV/claim that the author is making. It does not present a rubuttal to POV, and thus does not create NPOV. That is why the additions of Ultramarin to bash Chomsky, such as Chomky's "ethical predisposition",, or that "Chomky is no pacifist,' under the topic of "the US own definition," of terrorism is not valid, is off topic, irrelevant, and has been opposed. To be clear, Mongo's reasoning is correct-- disagreement about the authors claims, i.e. which the author is being cited for are valid to include per NPOV--however, Ultramarine's off topic anti-Chomsky reader additions have to go, as it does not do this in any way. I suggest, Mongo, that you consider this and revert yourself, to respect consensus, and this point. If we find counter POV about Chomsky's claims, on topic, then that would be prefectly fine to add.Giovanni33 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unproductive for you to just edit by reverting. You are an experienced editor. If you start trying to do 'your three reverts every day" you know where that will lead. Try to work with others and incorporate what you want with what they want. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of this stuff can stay, but it does need to be culled down a bit.  Some things simply go off topic, for example the fact that Chomsky is not a pacifist is simply not pertinent (it would be akin to saying, for example, since you are not a pacifist, your condemnation of Al Qaeda is irrelevant) and the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff is way, way off-topic.  The Windschuttle stuff should be cut down quite a bit but the basic points preserved.  The Sam Harris quote is interesting, but I wonder if the context is appropriate?  I don't have this book, so I'm wondering if the editor who introduced this material (I think it was Ultramarine) can briefly describe the context in which Harris was speaking of Chomsky?  Specifically, when he refers to "Chomsky's account" what account is he referring to?  I also am not exactly clear on how this fits into this article.  Chomsky, and others, are clearly arguing that at times the US fully intended for its policies to terrify civilians, which seems different to me than what Harris is talking about (I'm wondering if he's referring Chomsky's take on the US bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Chomsky viewed as a horrendous murderous act even though bombing it was essentially a mistake--we don't have a discussion of that here so it might be a bit off topic). If the Harris source can be clarified a bit and really is relevant I think it could be included here.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was the nations only domestic manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, what sort of an effect do you suppose destroying it would have? Werner Daum & Near East Foundation estimate the attack "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians. LamontCranston 5:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since there is no official defintion of these terms, we can only discuss how individuals make up their own definitions and then make claims that certain acts pass their own defintions. This discussion should certainly also include criticisms regarding how these individuals use or do not use these terms. So that Chomsky argues that some forms of terrorism are acceptable or that he argues that intentions do not matter is certainly part of the discussion of Chomsky's personal definition of terrorism and the claims he makes regarding which acts have passed his own definition.Ultramarine 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree, but would you agree that the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff etc. is unnecessary and off topic, and if it was you who added in the Harris quote can you quickly describe the context for it?  I'm not convinced that it's fully relevant to this article, but if I knew the context in which Harris was criticizing Chomsky maybe the relevance would become more clear.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have the book at the moment but the quote is quite clear. Harris accuses Chomsky of taking no consideration of intentions in his accusations. Regarding the Philippines/Vietnam comparison, that is part of the discussion of Chomsky's claims that some forms of terror are acceptable. It there is anything regarding the Philippines that should be removed, it the personal and OE essay in Philippines section.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I expanded the immediately relevant Windschuttle material a bit from its currently massively abbreviated version, but not as much as it was earlier. I personally don't think the "pacifist" quote and the Harris quote are necessary. - Merzbow 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, they show what Chomsky personal definition is and how he uses it.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt even talk about a definition of terrorism. It attacks Chomsky for consistency, not taking into account "intentions" (as is alleged by the critic), and makes other claims about Chomsky---all off topic. Adding it amounts to endorsing an ad hominen fallacy. I know you disagree, but no one else agrees with you about this, and we've gone around and around already about it. Stop adding it against consensus.Giovanni33 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The pacifist quote clearly does not fit, it's just not relevant whether Chomsky is a pacifist or not.  I could see the Harris quote being appropriate, but at the very least it was not worked in properly and the context is still unclear.  I'm really not trying to be picky here, but the Harris material seems to be about a separate issue--saying Chomsky is wrong to equate unintentional casualties with intentional terrorist acts--which we do not really cover here.  We are using Chomsky for his comments on Nicaragua v. United States, which involved actions on the part of the US which were quite intentional, and for his general comments about the US being "a leading terrorist state," particularly when US definitions of terrorism are applied.  Thus material calling Chomsky hypocritical for labeling US actions state terrorism but not the actions of other states (the Windschuttle stuff) is clearly relevant (as would be material arguing with his characterization of Nicaragua v. US, some of which has been included from the anti-Chomsky reader). I understand Ultramarine does not have the book on hand, but I'm still unclear as to what Harris is referring to when he talks about "Chomsky's account" (Chomsky has written or spoken 30 different accounts on practically every foreign policy topic imaginable).  I think it is important to clarify this.  Quite frankly though, I think it should be easy to find other, far more relevant scholars than Harris (his field is quite different) who argue with Chomsky.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This material was added against consensus. At least until we come to agreement about what is appropriate, it should be removed.Giovanni33 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you removed all of it. I added back my abbreviated version of the Chomsky material, which includes the portion that has achieved wide support. The other two non-Chomsky bits you removed were appropriately sourced and of proper length, and relevant; there was no reason to delete them, so I restored them. - Merzbow 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current dispute

message: This section is giving way too much weight to a single source, Richard Falk, almost an entire page. This can easily be compressed to 1/3 of its length. - Merzbow 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. We should keep the section, but syncopate Falk's opinion and bring in other sources. east.718 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhpas it can be trimmed down a bit, or add other sources to balance. Lets wait for the editor who put it there to comment. I dont want another round of edit waring. But can someone please restore the consensus/long term introduction? The current one is terrible, barely coherent, and POV. D. Horowitz is not a reliable source, using terms like "Chomsky cult" is lunancy and insulting (very fringe POV), and the details of the US vs. Nicar. are likewise charactertured by the same source. Please restore the previous version and lets work out an appropriate balanced intro.Giovanni33 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Merzbow.  Falk is exactly the kind of source we want in this article (I don't think there is anyone who would argue that he fails WP:RS), but the material drawing on him should be much shorter. There are some very useful passages, but I'm not even sure if a section called "State terrorism and propaganda" is warranted.  Not everything quoted from Falk relates to this issue, so perhaps the section could be retitled or, more likely, pieces of this could be incorporated in other sections. The sentence, "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" might actually go well in the intro (a specific quote from a notable author, other than Chomsky, would be useful there).  That would actually be an interesting topic to explore, but I think only if Falk has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism, and preferably if others have talked about this as well.  I also think some of Falk's discussion of terrorism by state vs. non-state actors (and how the US basically does not recognize the former) could go in one of the previous two sections, though those might have to be tweaked a bit in order to do so.  Props to the editor who found this material, but we do need to slim it down and perhaps chop it up and disperse it in a couple of different sections.  Perhaps different editors can make a few stabs at that, including BernardL who added this originally.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points and lots of good material, that even if trimmed down can go into other sections. I will add about Hiroshima dn Nagasaki, that its not only Falk, Chomsky, Parenti, but a whole host of other reputable scholars have given the opinon that the nuclear bombing of Japan were acts of state terror, albeit, in the context of war, but this is a notable pov. I've argued for a section on reporting this, and have supplied numerous sources to prove my point. The editors declinded to add this because it was in the context of a war, and state terrorism are actions that generally occur outside it.Giovanni33 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you editors believe that continuing to make this article more POV will somehow diminish the reason there is a NPOV dispute on this page?--MONGO 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Reporting all relevant POV's does not make it more POV, it makes it more comprehensive, and is in keeping with NPOV. There is no such thing as a pov that is NPOV. Nuetrality is acheived by reporting on what various sourses say, from all POV's. We are talking about adding more POV's, which is a good thing in this direction.Giovanni33 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict with MONGO's comment, reply is to Giovanni) Right, and that's an important POV regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would obviously have to be represented in a strong fashion if we want to have a section like that (i.e. it's war and therefore cannot be state terrorism) but of course Falk and others would presumably argue that dropping an atom bomb on a civilian population, knowing full well that it will cause mass death, and indeed actually counting on that as a means to terrify the citizens and their leaders, is a form of state terrorism.  I don't even know if I agree with Falk about that, but certainly it's a view worth discussing so long as the opposing view is discussed (I might be able to help find sources for the "it's not state terrorism" view actually). Giovanni, if you are going to work on a section like that I would suggest sticking it on the talk page first so we can discuss and revise it before possibly moving it into the article. Obviously it will be quite controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions. I agree and will work on such a section. I also note that while its true that acts of state terrorism do generally occurre outside a context of war, it doesnt make there are not some notable exceptions where it occurs within it. This is a case in point. And that we hare notable scholars who argue exactly that, can be reported on. I am all for balancing it with all POV, relevant to the issue.Giovanni33 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And to MONGO, I don't see why a section on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have to make the article more POV, so long as there truly are multiple reliable sources who take the view that Falk does on the question, and so long as their view is strongly balanced by the perspective that dropping the a-bombs was not state terrorism (indeed, as many historians argue, was a good thing).  If it is a one-sided section with Falk and his ilk as the only sources then obviously it would be unacceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed you wouldn't. Too bad the U.S. didn't have the bombs a year earlier...we could have ended that war long sooner. Someone explain how you contend that adding more POV and deleting efforts to get this article to be more NPOV, as was done here by an anonymous IP , is making this article meet our policies better.--MONGO 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May have something to do with that ad hominem issue. You know attacking the person, not the arguments we discussed a few sections up and found to be inappropriate. --SixOfDiamonds 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? The section the anon removed, that you left the dif for, is of a ad hominem on Chomsky. The complaints are not based on the definition presented ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so Chomsky is to be taken as a de facto expert and no evidence to show that his work is biased is allowed? That sounds like efforts to refute the misleading innuendo in this article (in an effort to get this thing to be NPOV) will be removed by anonymous editors who have made nary a single contribution to the talkpage. Or maybe they have...seems a lot of IP's revert back to the US=evil empire tenant.--MONGO 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I am not really sure what you are talking about, you just agreed it was an ad hominem and that it shouldn't be done. Now you are saying that it is ok? No of course its not allowed on a page that is not about Chomsky to argue if Chomsky is biased, however direct criticism to the section is permitted, such as a critique of the definition he is being cited for. This was discussed above, you may want to continue in its relevant section. --SixOfDiamonds 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am confused. I said it was an ad hominem, you said: "Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Giovanni33, I appreciate your speaking up. Tom Harrison Talk 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed --SixOfDiamonds 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I only meant to cull the sources but accidentally got the second half of the intro too. east.718 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you did good. You restored relevent critique of the POV of Chomsky et al, and restored a more neutral tone to the article.--MONGO 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-reverted myself before I read that; do with the second half of the intro what you want but don't do a blind revert as I fixed up all of the lead's sources and removed a couple which aren't reliable—namely an oil depletion expert's and an economics professor's blogs. east.718 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, East718. You've been the best, most productive editor for this article. I'm sure editors on both sides of the fence are thankful for the much needed, and moderating presence you've had here.Giovanni33 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we need more editors like you here.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. east.718 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Declined, ill-advisedly in my opinion. If the IP edits continue and some admin thinks to fully-protect this, don't. (The last admin to fully-protect over an IP-fueled edit war wouldn't even deign to respond to my query on their talk page). - Merzbow 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection would have been useful, full protection would definitely be a bad idea since we are making some progress.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And, I've removed them. Please don't add it back until there is some consensus to do so. That is not producive. Currently there is ongoing discussion about what would be appropriate to add for balance and NPOV. Your additions are currently opposed by most editors for reasons that have already been explained numerous times.Giovanni33 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State terrorism and Propaganda 

message: :Personally I am in favour of a section on ideology/propaganda because in my experience of reading the relevant literature it is common among analysts to raise the role of ideology to the extent that it can probably be considered an essential part of the analysis. For example, in what is arguably the foundational book of analyses of state terrorism, Western State Terrorism, edited by Alexander George, the ideological apparatus obscuring understanding of terrorism is given extensive treatment in two essays. Edward Herman and Gerry O'Sullivan discuss the way government spokepersons, wide-circulation media, and pundits of the "terrorism industry", consisting of terrorism "experts", think tanks, research institutes and security firms, downplay the West's and particularly the U.S.'s role in spawning violence. Alexander George examines in depth what he refers to as "terrorology", the academic study of terrorism. It should come as no surprise that Chomsky spills considerable ink arguing that a propaganda apparatus and "intellectual priesthood" serve power interests by providing one-sided perspectives on the issue. Falk too places significant emphasis on the way he feels a propaganda apparatus impairs understanding. Moreover, he outlines the consequences of such distortions. For example he lambasted George Bush during the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan for a regressive narrowing the conception of terrorism to that of what he refers to as the "statist" conception in which, by definition, only non-state actors could be responsible for terrorism. At the time he noted that it "gave governments around the planet a green light to increase the level of violence directed at their longtime internal adversaries. Several important governments were glad to merge their struggle to stem movements of self-determination with the US war on global terror, and none more than Ariel Sharon's Israeli government." I see a propaganda section as a logical complement to sections that discuss the concept on 1. theoretical terms, dealing with definitions and 2. empirical terms, dealing with facts. Even when these analysts have arrived at a consistent defintion, they have felt the need to explain why the defintion is not widely accepted and also why the facts are not widely known- and that is exactly where the ideological apparatus comes into play. I'm okay with people trimming what I contributed, but nevertheless I feel there is a strong need for such a category and that the literature bears me out on this.BernardL 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also favor such a section as it goes to the heart of the controversy regarding the conception of State terrorism, and is in line with this article's offering differeing definitions. A discussion of the policial and ideological basis of the controversy over applying the term in an accepted legal international consensus among states is logical within the context and flow of this article, and in in keeping with much of the literature on the subject. Although, I think the point can be made with less words, and thus trimmed a bit, that is only a secondary concern provided its in its own section in the body of the article. I also think it should be looked at for POV issues to make sure its as nuetral and NPOV as it can be, i.e. incorporating those voices that illustrate the POV that State terrorism is not a valid concept (i.e. doesn't apply to States).Giovanni33 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, while Falk might have an opinion worth hearing, one wonders how credible it is when he has coauthored 9/11 conspiracy theory junk with the likes of David Ray Griffin and has made some statements that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians. Is the radical left traditionally anti-Semetic?--MONGO 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He suggests the occupations ultimate goal is obliteration of the Palestinian people (can't imagine why when we have Israel annexing all valuble land, Israeli statesmen declaring that Palestinians who chose to stay will live like dogs, 'acedemics' declaring that there really isn't even a Palestinian people so its okay to kick them out, and so on), Horowitz, and you, jump on this with the usual pejorative - that the mere accusation is anti-Semetic! LamontCranston 6:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State Terrorism and Propaganda 2

message: I consider myself an expert on U. S. State Terrorism since I wrote so  wrote so many papers on it in college. Maybe  I could put copies online, and we can use them for sources. I would like to add a section on the State Terrorism and program of genocide directed at the Native Americans by the USG.
Terrorism and the United States: 
A Pragmatic and Theoretical Approach.
3. Designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target –<I>" Acts of terrorism not only affect the immediate target but they affect the public emotionally and psychologically as well. The USG has been known to employ such tactics in the past to get what it wants. In its early history such strategies were used on the Native American population of what is now the Continental United States. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States committed the USG to the “removal of the Indians” (Zinn 1995; 125). Under the guise of Manifest Destiny the USG set itself on a course to eradicate the land of ‘savages.’ Coined by John L. O’Sullivan the term Manifest Destiny became an instant battle cry for American expansion to the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1850s. In an editorial written for the New York Morning News O’Sullivan greatly advocated westward expansion and referred to the Spanish-Indian-American populations as a “mixed and confused blood” (Current 1965; 441), a sentiment that surely became bigoted justification for the eradication of those First Nations. The years 1838 and 1839, the period commonly referred to as the Trail of Tears, saw the worst of this mentality as there were multiple forced migrations of the indigenous populations. Every single peace or land treaty between the USG and the Native American populations was broken by the USG (Zinn 1995). These tactics were designed to have psychological impacts on the rest of the indigenous tribes."</I> http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Bmedley Sutler 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and welcome to WP. Thanks for that source. I feel this article should have a section on US state terrorism against American Indians. I know there is an article about the subject, but a small section here pointing to the main article makes sense to me. Also, I'd be interested in reading your papers if you post them online. While we could maybe use the references your paper may cite, in its claims, we wouldn't be able to use your papers directly for articles on WP, since that would constitute what is known as "original research" and that is not allowed. But, I am interested in reading your papers. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep - Another example of how to violate one of our policies - WP:SYNTH (Nothing against the the new user or his college papers - see WP:RS). The last time I checked, the Mayflower was not an American battleship that greeted the American Indians. Who was it who met the American Natives head on? Was it Europeans? The British had Thirteen Colonies. We need to start State terrorism by Europeans then. This POV playground can only go so far. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about State terrorism (or claims thereof) against the already established United States govt. against the native populations. This is big part of US history. The fact that you may need a US history lesson is further reason why a section about this should be in this article.Giovanni33 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should hold off on such major introductions for now, the article is in a pretty shabby state as is. The Guatemala section needs a rewrite anyway; let's improve the current article then worry about other allegations. east.718 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Reply to Giovanni33 - Perhaps you could use a current lesson about the modern day State terrorism by Mexico then. It all violates no original research. JungleCat  Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start an article on State Terrorism by American Colonists. I feel that this article should exclude the many acts of terror targeting the indiginous Americans that predate 04/07/76. Bmedley Sutler 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to stick to international affairs, though arguably, the U.S. was only created after the lands that were controlled by the native aboriginal population were taken from them. However, for the scope of this article, I do think it should address U.S. international relationships. I do suggest that you could start an article on such matters, and there are a number of articles about various white---native wars relationships/wars/masscares, etc. which are linked from Indian wars...also check with the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to see if a similar article already exists or for further help.--MONGO 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can put my suggestion on hold for now. Bmedley Sutler 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MONGO here that this article should stick to US international relationships and his suggestions for thinking about starting a new article (particularly contacting the WikiProject) are good ones. Incidentally, I think an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" would be a bit problematic. For one thing, much of the stuff that went down between colonists and natives was not really state directed (though obviously some of it was) but rather more akin to private vigilantism. Perhaps more importantly, it is arguable that there was no such thing as a "nation-state" prior to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.  If so key events like the Pequot War (1637) could not be included in an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" which would certainly complicate matters. Just food for thought.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State Terrorism should most definately apply to domestic affairs, why wouldn't it?  I think domestic state terrorism is/was a very common occurance in some cases throughout history (thinking USSR or color coded terror-alert warnings, what does that do other than cause domestic 'terror'...kidding).  So why not mention it in this article?  I do agree there are other things that should be focused on more immediately though.Wiegrajo 11:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: For now we could add in the Native American articles about this related subject on the See Other links?Giovanni33 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem a high priority, but what specifically did you have in mind?--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining the project 

message: Sources are not required to meet notability requirements, articles are. You cannot remove sources becaue you never heard of them. --74.73.16.230 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "notable" is the wrong word since it could create confusion with another policy, but we do need to use reliable sources, and for the purposes of this article I think we should use expert sources whenever possible.  The Znet article was by a independent researcher/teacher/activist, not an expert on the issue at hand as far as we know. At best it is a questionable source.  I replaced it with a source that quoted experts, but made the same basic point articulated in the intro sentence it was supporting.  I guess I don't see the problem--stronger sourcing will make it much more difficult to delete or AfD this article, so I would think you would view it as a good thing. But again, feel free to revert me if you think the Znet article is particularly important, and then discuss it further here. I'm signing off for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not referring to Znet in particular, but this idea of removing Human Rights groups because we never heard of them, especially when they are operated out of a country no one here has stated they are from, not that being from France would still have much bearing. I am commenting no a large portion of the complaints which state they cannot find anything on the author, or never heard of them, or their group, or their site. What we know, or how popular a source is on the internet is not a reason to remove the author. This type of argument is not really acceptable and not per any policy. I believe there is a note in a policy specifically warning against judging things by your own knowledge of them. --SixOfDiamonds 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref 109 and Felix Würsten are notable. "Some Swiss college" is ETH Zurich, Einstein's Alma Mater, and one of the most prestigious universities in the world. This article is a report of a conference on NATO at ETH's Center for Security Studies. All very notable. ... Seabhcan 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this fact sums up exactly why, "I never heard of it", is not a measuring stick. I am starting to worry about this constant questioning of sources without actual research on the topic. This is starting to become disruptive and I ask anyone who wants to question sources to please look them up and do some research on them first. Apparently the third link on google for ETH brings you to the Wikipedia article which shows not only the prestigious nature of the college, but some of the nobel prize winning faculty. Listing this as "some swiss school" was either disingenuous or a show that research was not done before declaring things "not notable" which as I mention is not a measurement for sources, but for articles. --SixOfDiamonds 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a campus weekly newspaper. Questioning this source was a absolutely necessary. And the standard for sources is reliability, which is a similar concept to notability: WP:RS - "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources. - Merzbow 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not about liberal or conservative sources, if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Wikipedia and I am then asking you to leave this discussion, this is not some extended battle ground for next years elections. Further adding a source you believe fails WP:RS to prove a point about "liberal" sources is a violation of WP:POINT --SixOfDiamonds 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Civility. Agree with Merzbow. Exception claims require exceptional sources. No double standard please.Ultramarine 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to, apparently its not a real link. Not really sure how its relevant considering Merzbow stated: "I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources." You can report it somewhere if you like, I am sure an admin will explain to Merzbow at that point that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --SixOfDiamonds 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Please read Wikipedia:Civility.Ultramarine 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground. No one is leaving this discussion short of an arbcom remedy, so cease telling people to do so...you don't own this article. If this article ever is going to be neutral, it has to have appropriate rebuttals which examine the basis of evidence and or political rationale for some of the sources some are using here.--MONGO 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement was "if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Wikipedia and I am then asking you to leave this discussion," Please try to read the statement in full before commenting. As for WP:OWN, I think I have barely added anything into the article itself, and have done quite a bit less reverting then you have. Please leave your politics at home. --SixOfDiamonds 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."Ultramarine 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said he was trying to hurt it? Please read more carefully in the future. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand by every word I said, because I am seeing editors here apply wildly different standards for notability for certain sources with the only difference being that those sources are from a conservative POV (I'll refrain from pointing out specific examples, this talk page is full of them). All I'm looking for is a simple "yes" to the question "Are you willing to apply the same standard for reliability to all sources, regardless of a source's POV"? If the answer is not "yes", then there is no common ground here. I am looking for "yes"'s from all editors here, on all sides. My answer is, of course, yes. - Merzbow 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a yes or no question, please leave your politics at home. Anyone who goes out looking for "conservative" sources to counter what they deam to be "liberal sources" is doing harm to Wikipedia, especially if they are not considering WP:RS or willing to work outside of it simply because "liberal sources" are not following it. Which is a violation of WP:POINT. If you have sources to add, do so and they will be measured against WP:RS on their own merit, not what political faction you or anyone else have assigned them to. --SixOfDiamonds 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time I ask you to read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Yes, of course Merzbow is right. No double standard.Ultramarine 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying sources should be added because they are conservative or liberal; they should be added to achieve NPOV, and right now the article is weighted towards the POV of those who claim the US conducts state terror. I will henceforth not mention "conservative" or "liberal", since you seem to be taking great pains now not to refer to the political views of any source. Should I take your statement as a "yes", the POV of a source is irrelevant to its reliability? - Merzbow 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS determines reliability. --SixOfDiamonds 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. But as far as I am concerned, referencing in known radicals to support the tenant that the US==terrorism sponsor is a violation of SYNTH. From Chomsky to Falk to Ganser, et al, I see repeated and easily demonstrated evidence that these guys have all refused to acknowledge the terrorism supported by such nations as Syria, Iran and others. Falk has apparently pubished a POV laden bilge about 9/11 conspiracy theories with a well known 9/11 CTer. In addition, Falk has also accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. Ganser has also been involved in ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory work. I ask if these people are to be considered to be permitted here as adeqaute referencing to support the radical notion that the US==state terrorism sponsor, then a proper rebuttal of this pov and the authors who are cited as having it is the only way to achieve NPOV. SixOfDiamonds...you leave your politics at home.--MONGO 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rofl, what are my politics since I have expressed them here? I am sure you will sorely fail to categorize them. Again sources are not liberal or conservative, we do not weigh them in that manner. It is good you have all told that to Merzbow as no one supports adding sources based on their political leaning. --SixOfDiamonds 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article must follow WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP.Ultramarine 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sub-thread has now reached the end of its useful life, let's reserve the rest of this section for discussing the pros and cons of the sources in my list. - Merzbow 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It can. Exceptional claims requires exception sources.Ultramarine 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is only claiming he never heard of the source. You cannot say they do not meet the requirement if you don't know anything about them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am stating that for example a Philippine activist zine, "The Philippine's Alternative Weekly Online Newsmagazine, is not an exceptional source.Ultramarine 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am challenging them because I can find no evidence of their notability as organizations qualified to render opinions on foreign policy, searching on Google, findarticles.com, etc. There are no significant mentions of their expertise in foreign policy analysis by other unquestionably reliable sources. Can you provide evidence of that? (Plus, as I mentioned above, I don't see any accusation against the US of supporting terrorism in the redress.org article, maybe somebody can point out in its 60-odd pages where that is). - Merzbow 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: William Blum is a socialist US critic praised by bin Laden. His not an academic and does not publish in academic press. He has worked with spreaders of KGB disinformation. Should be removed as an unreliable source. Objections? Ultramarine 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, his article apparently cites him as more then reliable. --SixOfDiamonds 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What article and how does it proves he is reliable? Ultramarine 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine, the description "socialist" does not make a person unreliable. William Blum's book was published in 2003, long after "spreaders of KGB disinformation" went out of business, and being praised by Bin Laden does not make one an enemy. Bin Laden also praised Sweden. Do you have anything more than your dislike for what Blum has to say? ... Seabhcan 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not an academic and does not publish in academic press. His prior record casts further serious doubts about his reliability.Ultramarine 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's not academic. Rather he's notable due to his former employ in the US government and the popularity of his book . If we can't have Blum, why can we have Dennis Halliday? What in his prior record cast doubt, in your opinion? ... Seabhcan 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working with Philip Agee casts doubts on anyone's reliability, to say the least.Ultramarine 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an ad hominem, if you have an issue with Blums work that is being cited please state what that issue is. However attacking the people and is no help here. --SixOfDiamonds 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already listed several reasons above.Ultramarine 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not arguments against what he is being cited for. Saying bin Laden likes to read Blum does not disqualify Blum as WP:RS. Stating his political perspective is further not a reason to disqualify him. He surely meets WP:RS by looking at his article here. He has been published multiple times for his work in the field, that qualifies him under WP:RS. --74.73.16.230 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has not published in academia literature and is not an academic. It is a double standard to include him and not Horowitz.Ultramarine 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Blum as a source 

message: Both are very partisan activist magazines. If including one of them, then similar sources from the other sides should also be allowed.Ultramarine 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is the guide, we should look at the publisher, author, and their credentials to determine issues. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --SixOfDiamonds 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unclear what you mean. Are you saying that ZM and FPM are as good as academic sources? Ultramarine 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources that pass WP:RS are acceptable as sources. Not sure why that was not clear. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --74.73.16.230 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z magazine vs. Frontpage magazine 

message: Since the article includes left-wing sources such as Z magazine and William Blum, discussed above, what is the objection to the The Anti-Chomsky Reader? Ultramarine 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the past discussion, the comments being drawn from it are not discussing Chomskys definition, they are attacking Chomsky as a person. It is not a correct rebuttal of an argument for his definition to say he should have called Pol Pot terrorism. That is a ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy. --74.73.16.230 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blum beats out the Anti-Chomsky Reader significantly I think, and with Z (which publishes many, many authors) it depends on the author of the article (a piece by Chomsky, or Arundhati Roy or Edward Said would obviously be acceptable in my opinion). I think the Anti-Chomsky Reader can be used in certain contexts but not others, as I have argued before.  For example I think it would be okay to use Horowitz's assertion that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" (referring to Nicaragua v. US obviously) because he is simply stating a view which is obviously held by many, but it would not be okay to use him to say that the reason the US left the World Court was simply because they did not like the fact that Soviet bloc states sat on the court. That's a slanted and controversial claim, and Horowitz is not considered an expert on international relations (less so than Chomsky even, though I believe Horowitz actually did study the topic in grad school). The best thing is to find better sources than Horowitz, Z, and even Blum. I'm not sure why you are so anxious to use the Anti-Chomsky Reader anyway--I'm sure there all kinds of academic articles and books about Nicaragua v. US and it would be fairly easy to find one which, even if it does not discuss Chomsky directly, takes umbrage with the view that the US was convicted of state terrorism in that case.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anti-Chomsky reader has many significant authors, regarding Blum see above. It is certainly a double standard to include Blum if not including this book.Ultramarine 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a huge debate here I think, Horowitz's Anti-Chomsky Reader can definitely be used as a source as I said above--depending on the context and author--just as a source like Zmag/Znet can be used depending on the context and author.  Neither are ideal, but in lieu of better sources I think we should accept them.  I still disagree about Blum.  The fact that he worked with--whatever that means exactly--Philip Agee in the 1970s is a good guilt by association argument but otherwise quite irrelevant, of course.  Killing Hope--whatever its flaws, and though I have not read it I'm sure it has some serious flaws as far as mainstream academics are concerned--is clearly a notable source and a widely read and (in some circles) cited foreign policy book, and as such Blum obviously passes sourcing tests for our purposes in this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the arguments you apply against Horowitz apply equally to Blum. It is a double standard to include Blum but not Horowitz.Ultramarine 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which arguments I've applied against Horowitz you are referring to, but Blum is a former State Department employee who has written a couple of major books on US foreign relations, whereas Horowitz is neither of those things.  Regardless, I think David Horowitz is worthy of inclusion for the time being as I have said repeatedly and as I'll say one more time.  I think there's no question though that Blum has bigger foreign policy chops than Horowitz--unless you want to look back at the latter's work in Ramparts Magazine.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not an academic and does not publish in academic press. That he had a minor position in the State Department is not evidence for notabillity or scholarship. He has published some books most known for being endorsed by bin Laden and for association with KGB desinformer Agee. Horowitz is at least as notable, if that is the criterion.Ultramarine 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Anti-Chomsky Reader 

message: The leader of the terrorist group PJAK, claims in an interview that his group is supported by the US and German governments.(Press TV) ... Seabhcan 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently picked up by Associated Press  and mentions it was picked up by the New Yorker, would be interesting to see what the New Yorker article actually says. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been denied, so it should be easy to present a counter point and make it NPOV - Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs --SixOfDiamonds 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trained by US soldiers Turkish Daily --SixOfDiamonds 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis Kucinich to congress. Interesting stuff. Plenty of material. If you need help Seabhcan please let me know. --SixOfDiamonds 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Yorker , sorry last one. --SixOfDiamonds 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid to add anything myself - I'll let someone else do it. ... Seabhcan 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reasonable speculation is that Washington planners may be seeking to inspire secessionist movements that the United States can then “defend” against the home country. In Iran, the main oil resources are in the Arab areas adjacent to the Gulf, Iran’s Khuzestan—and sure enough, there is now an Ahwazi liberation movement of unknown origin, claiming unspecified rights of autonomy. Nearby, Iraq and the gulf states provide a base for U.S. military intervention. Anyone want to tackle condensing that into the article? LamontCranston 6:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, it'll fit in nicely with what's already there in the section. --MichaelLinnear 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on Iran 

message: Why is there graphical descriptions of rape and murder that done in Nicaragua and Guatemala.  These descriptions add no factual contents but seems to be included only to evoke a emotinal reactio. The connection to the US is extremely thin. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. The Guatemala rape involved unknown persons. That one of them spoke American English is not evidence for US state terrorism, many people speak American English without being secrect US government agents. Or even being Americans, if they have had some eduction in the US, as many higher government officials in Latin America have.Ultramarine 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that the quote is sourced from a book called "State Terrorism and the United States", and that that book deems the description significant (it goes on for several pages there, this is just a mild excerpt), argues in favour of it remaining. We argued about this point many times before, so this is all I'll say on the topic. ... Seabhcan 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Nicaraguan rape and murder? Regarding Guatemala, could you explain the connection to US state terrorism? Ultramarine 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the source and let me know if you still have a question. I think this idea of asking without researching goes contrary to why the sources are provided in the first place. If you read the source and still have questions, then it is understandable, please let me know then what you would like clarified. --SixOfDiamonds 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still does not anwer the Nicaraguan rape and murder. If no objections and explanation, I will remove it. If I do not understand the connection between the Guatemala rape and US "state terrorism", then many other will not, so it should be removed also.Ultramarine 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will revert it as vandalism. This is not a content dispute, your inability, or unwillingness to review a source as provided is before removing it on the grounds of relevance is not acceptable. Again I am more then willing to assist you after you have read the source to answer any question you may have. --SixOfDiamonds 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no response regarding why the Nicaraguan rape and murder should be inlcuded. Regarding the Guatemala case, obviously the passage must be coherent to the reader, otherwise it should be removed.Ultramarine 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no response regarding the Nicaraguan case. Unless a respone, I will remove due to no objections. Regarding the Guatemala case, that there may be an explanation of the connection between this rape and US "state terrorism" is beside he point. Obviously the passage must be coherent to the Wikipedia reader.Ultramarine 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Mind if I find a bot to keep repeating this for me? I am getting tired of explaining to you that you have to read the source. This is starting to seem like tendentious editing to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes both way SixOfDiamonds. I find your edits to be tendentious frankly.--MONGO 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try not to interject simply to attack another editor, its against policy. --SixOfDiamonds 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Nicaraguan rape is not in the book about state terrorism, so the above arguments do not apply, and explanation for its inclusion have not been given. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. Yes, you say read the source, but my argument is not that there is not someone claiming that the rape in Guatemala was state terrorism by the US. The point is that the connection should be explained, or the text is incoherent.Ultramarine 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SixOfDiamonds, do not remove other users talk pages comments, like you just did. That is considered vandalism.Ultramarine 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF it was a edit conflict. This is why you should ask first. --SixOfDiamonds 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could it be an edit conflict? You made the edit before this.Ultramarine 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit of mine that he removed was me saying that I agree the Nicaraguan rape material is not relevant. - Merzbow 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an obvious edit conflict as my own comments were removed in the dif you provide. This is again, why its better to ask, or make note, before accusing anyone of doing something on purpose for malicious reasons. WP:AGF Ultramarine. --SixOfDiamonds 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, this still does not give any explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaraguan rape.Ultramarine 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept your apology. --SixOfDiamonds 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give an explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaragua material.Ultramarine 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is bad form to continue conversations in two locations. This thread is complete. --SixOfDiamonds 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue below.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean this unsourced article. There is no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a republishing of the article from The Nation, which is why I sourced the original, not the excerpt. --SixOfDiamonds 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still unsourced and still no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a source listed, its currently source 100. --SixOfDiamonds 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nation article has no sources. Regardless, it does not mention that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Sources that meet WP:RS such as The Nation, do not need to list their sources, that is a Wikipedia policy. Newspapers do not operate on Wiki policy. --SixOfDiamonds 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is partisan source. That the article lists no sources for its claims make the claims less reliable and unverifiable, reputable newspapers gives sources for extraordinary claims. Regardless, the article does not claim that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Further it does not need to list sources. Perhaps you should ask the people over at WP:RS if sources like newspapers need to list their sources. --SixOfDiamonds 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has some torture chambers got to do with this rape?Ultramarine 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please rephrase your question, considering the context of the discussion and what is being discussed, I do not understand. --SixOfDiamonds 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the relation between alleged torture chambers run by the CIA and the rape?Ultramarine 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the connection between torture chambers ran by the CIA in Guatemala and a rape of a women who sued the US government for her rape in a torture chamber in Guatemala? --SixOfDiamonds 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR reserch connection, not allowed. The article makes no such connection. Regarding Nicaragua, please give an explanation for the inclusion of the material.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, what you are doing is violating "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"Ultramarine 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you stating both sources do not say the US was complicit in the torture? --SixOfDiamonds 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a source alleging that the CIA run torture chambers. One place connected to the rape was something that may have been a torture chamber. To synthesize this into claiming that the rape must have taken place in a CÄI torture chamber does not follow logically and is OR reserach.Ultramarine 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Still no respone regarding Nicaragua.Ultramarine 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and another source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and also in addition that they taught the torturers how to torture. That is not synthesis. If you read the sources, and not just the quotes, you would know that, but you have been refusing the read them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained, it does not follow logically that the rape took place in one of those alleged torture chambers. An OR synthesis not allowed. Still no respone regarding Nicaragua, I take it that you agree to removing this scene? Ultramarine 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking again at the source, it alleges "North American C.l.A. operatives work inside a Guatemalan Army unit that maintains a network of torture centers and has killed thousands of Guatemalan civilians" This does not mean that the CIA run the torture chambers.Ultramarine 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Futthermore, the Intelligence Oversight Board in its report does mention some support, but also that the influence was used to try to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I provide seem to say it was not to lessen human rights violations. It seems we have content that is supported by WP:RS sources and you have some content you can add to establish NPOV. The joy of cooperation. --SixOfDiamonds 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that? I will now remove Nicaragua as per above. An OR synthesis still not allowed as per above.Ultramarine 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not follow logically from any of this that the US was responsible for the blame. That is an OR synthesis.Ultramarine 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no longer addressing you on this topic until I have seen you have read the sources. Please let me know when you have. --SixOfDiamonds 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you ignore quotes like "But all of this information about the U.S. support for Guatemalan intelligence, for the Guatemalan killing apparatus, has been out there for years and years," from the sources, it does not look good. So let me know when you have read the sources before stating "It does not follow logically ... US was responsible for the blame" Also this article covers state terrorism which includes state sponsored terrorism, please keep that in mind. --SixOfDiamonds 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite yet more allegations by the same author as previously, in dubious partisan magazines like Z magazine. I take it that you now accept similar sources such as Frontpage magazine? That a person is a "CIA Asset" does not mean that the CIA control everything that he does. Regarding the relationship between D-2 and the CIA, I quote: "The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem."Ultramarine 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is the basis for NPOV. Both sources get included and both sides. I am very happy to work with you as it seems we have accomplished something. Also the interview was Znet Magazine, the other 2 sources where he wrote the article for were The Nation which meets WP:RS. Further, if you still doubt the author, you can read his Wikipedia article, he is highly awarded and praised for uncovering the link to the CIA and South American forces. Please actually read the mans article if you wish to keep this going. The link you provide gets included presenting one side, the link I provide presents the other and we have achieved NPOV, praise the lord! , whichever one you do praise, or none for that matter, or multiples of them ... --SixOfDiamonds 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can include both of these views regarding the D-2, although the same standard will apply to sources from both sides. Regardless, this does not prove that the US ordered the rape. Assuming that Gramajo's men did the rape and that Gramajo ordered this, both questionable, then this still does not prove that the US ordered Gramajo to order the rape.Ultramarine 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US Sponsored terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I guess you have a claim for this in the state terrorism book. If so, then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since it is claimed that US funded Gramajo or D-2 ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I keep telling you to read the sources. I already posted an excerpt above, the articles are stating the US is responsible for the action because of their funding. One even says they would not have happened if it was not for the US. Again, please read the sources, this is starting to become highly disruptive. --SixOfDiamonds 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since the US funded Gramajo or D-2 who in turn is claimed to have ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are given so we do not have to constantly quote from the source. Too many quotes in an article is not good form. If the user needs to, they can reference the source. The miscommunication here stems from your assumption that the source does not fit, people normally do not read an article or journal and believe that all sources given are not correct. They then go and check the source for additional information, a source is given because it is relevant and connected. You have been challenging them as being neither without reading them causing the mess above. Readers do not have this issue, people do not assume they are being lied to, and if they have doubts, they read the source provided. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Some see the US as indirectly responsible for the rape...since it funded persons or organizations allegedly connected to the rape?"Ultramarine 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is greater then that, the article is titled appropriately that the reader will understand that events mention within it are going toward explaining the title. The sources as such are going toward explaining the information presented within that. If you were reading an article titled "Species of reptiles endemic to Cuba" you would not need the article to state in reference to the section "Cuban crocodiles" that they are endemic to Cuba. It is already being said by the article title. In this instance the title is "state terrorism" the sources support this by citing the sponsorship, funding, training, and over seeing as well as payrolling of those involved with terrorist acts sorted by country, in this case it is Guatemala. --SixOfDiamonds 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already presented evidence that the US tried to stop the HRV. No evidence has been presented that that the US was responsible for this particular rape, so something like above is all that can be stated. Furthermore, what is the reason for having the long graphic rape scene. Not necessary and only polemical.Ultramarine 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the sources. I am no longer having this discussion with you until you have. It is entirely disruptive to constantly question sources without having read them, once you have read them please let me know, until then removing any will be considered vandalism. As I stated, please let me know when you have finished. --SixOfDiamonds 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Civility. Stop accusing me for vandalism which a content dispute is not. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not accusing you of vandalism. I am telling you, that if you remove sources without even had read them, on the basis they do not contain content, that you have not read to know, then it will be vandalism. WP:FNHGFHEHR Read the sources. --SixOfDiamonds 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is notacontent dipsute or making bold edits. I will note it as a incivility if you make such claims. Back to the issues. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to have knowledge of the content to dispute it. Please read the sources. I will then discuss them with you, no "assumptions", we can discuss what the sources do say. Once you have read them, and care to discuss them, please let me know. --74.73.16.230 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical descriptions of rape and murder 

message: No verifiable source regarding this very obscure conspiracy theory has been added. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Killing Hope, on page 150, William Blum quotes an unnamed French official  as saying: "The CIA played a direct part in the Algiers coup, and certainly weighed heavily on the decision taken by ex-general Challe to start his putsch." Bmedley Sutler 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will add this.Ultramarine 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your're welcome. Can we agree to a moratorium on adding new challenges until we have time to address that very long list from Merzbow? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such moratorium by others who keep adding new material without discussion on talk.Ultramarine 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory regarding the Algiers putsch of 1961 

message: Who? I cannot find these (at least two are implied by the statement) in the sources. Ultramarine 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look harder. Human Rights Watch accused the US of state terrorism in Pakistan. Specifically it involves the interrogation and torture in Pakistan of two US citizens by the FBI "FBI agents questioned the brothers on at least six occasions... did not intervene to end the torture...refused to provide consular facilities (requested by the detainees family) normally offered to detained U.S. citizens...and threatened the men with being sent to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay if they did not confess to involvement in terrorism." The men were released without charge after 7 months and told their release was conditional on not talking to the media. And HRW also accuse the US of supporting Pakistani abduction and torture of people in secret prisons to extract confessions, “The United States should be condemning this, but instead it either directing this activity or turning a blind eye". This is one organisation and I'm sure there are a few more out there. Wayne 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one and does not accuse the US of terrorism, that is your own interpretation.Ultramarine 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking the other way while another tortures is not the equivalent of performing torture yourself and that is not terrorism. It is not ethical; it is not moral, but it is not terrorism unless we are attempting to change the definition to meet our personal agenda. This feels an awfully lot like a soapbox. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism" 

message: [copyright violation removed]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:18676175 Bmedley Sutler 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what is the relevance of this to state terrorism by the United States? Ultramarine 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diana Ortiz 

message: Looks like John has decided that there is no consensus to move this page back to where it needs to be, namely Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Instead of examining the comments from numerous debates on this issue, he has instead acted unilaterally (having offered little in the way of dicussion lately) for this move after it was moved by East718, who has been trying to make the article better and has participated in the latest discussions...can anyone reference where the United States has been demonstrated by an internatioanlly recognized body like the UN or the EU to actually be a state sponsor of terrorism, or do we have to continue to rely on the OPINIONS of well known extreme radicals for a basis in the current title. I mean, Chomsky has repeatedly been shown to overlook terrorism made by the communist block. Falk has made anti-Semitic comments including calling the Israeli government guilty of genocide and has even coauthored a book about 9/11 conspiracy theories (gag). Ganser, well, it's pretty obvious where he is coming from, and he too is an embracer of idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know I am going to have a long wait for an answer since their is no answer...the fact is, the U.S. has not been decreed by anything like the UN or the EU as a state sponsor of terrorism.--MONGO 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See up the page a bit. I didn't see the discussion you had while I took a break (as I said I was doing), and when I saw it had been moved assumed it was more move vandalism. I moved it back immediately when I saw there was a consensus to adopt the weasel-word title; seems like I missed the talk page. AGF, old chap, can't you? --John 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to respond to the rant above. The UN does not have a list of terrorist groups. It has a list of groups attached to the Taliban and al'Qeada, which I provided a link in the AfD that showed the fallacy of citing that as a terrorist list. --74.73.16.230 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times do you have to be asked to sign your username with your IP. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep being such a waste of time? Besides, it is obvious you're a sockpuppet anyway.--MONGO 06:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not be upset at my contributions. Four articles in 30 days, this boy is hot! How are those parks coming along? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously there is no consensus established yet for these title moves. Lets get some consensus first before we make any major changes like that. I can see arguments for both sides of this question, btw, but I prefer that we respect consensus rather than just forcing a title move. Its premature to do so.Giovanni33 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is now a working consensus for the move. - Merzbow 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why they are belly aching about this move. It will make it harder to delete it if is titled Allegations...think pepople.--MONGO 06:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice.--MONGO 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your posts would be taken more seriously MONGO if you didn't include so much POV dreck to bolster your arguements. Why exactly does believing in alternate 9/11 theories disqualify a person as a RS? According to polls a majority of Americans also do not believe the "official" account. I have not read much of Falk so can make no comment on his alledged anti semitism but why do you use an example that many experts, in using it's broadest definition, also hold and is supported by statements made by various Israeli politicians? All I can find Falk saying is that Israel's actions in Gaza have "genocidal potential" and that he doesn't consider this type of genocide the same as that of extermination. If Falk is actually saying Israel wants to kill all Palestinians instead of just removing them from Israel then that's different so give me a link. Where is Ganser coming from? You do a lot of good work on WP and are doing yourself a great diservice by using such rediculous examples for why not to use these sources. Wayne 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As must unfortunately be pointed out quite often, criticism of Israel--even accusing them of genocide--does not equate to anti-Semitism. Look here for something Falk wrote on the subject of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It's well outside the mainstream (in the US at least), but also obviously not anti-Semitic. By the way, as he mentions there, Falk himself is Jewish. I also recall that, prior to the Iraq War, Falk wrote a piece in The Nation arguing that it would be possible for there to be a "just war" in Iraq, he just did not like the way Bush was going about it. The article created quite a stir and a bunch of prominent leftists wrote in objecting to Falk's piece. Falk got his JD at Harvard and has been teaching law at Princeton since 1965, and has been published hundreds of times and given expert testimony and served on international panels of jurors multiple times. Reducing him to an anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist (I didn't even know he had ever commented on 9/11 until now) is quite ridiculous.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, indeed he has coauthored a book with a well know 9/11 conspiracy theorist about U.S. involvement aka complicity in 9/11. Again, if all we have is the opinions of the radical left to bolster the U.S.=terrorist sponsor state, then we'll just have to do what we can to demonstrate that these opinions aren't mainstream.--MONGO 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I believe he simply wrote an intro, not the book itself. The fact is that this guy is an unbelievably respected legal scholar. Maybe he holds some out-there opinions as well, but this does not discount his expertise on international law (which is extremely relevant to this article, of course). Isaac Newton tried to find secret codes in the Bible, but he also knew a hell of a lot about gravity.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess that means gravity was not real, or have we ended this war on sources on the basis of WP:IDONOTLIKEIT --74.73.16.230 10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: While looking for something else I came across this a recent issue of the journal Radical History Review (which is quite respected and has published scads of prominent historians). The title of the issue is "Truth Commissions: State Terror, History, and Memory." I don't think it's available online and I have not looked at it, but it might have some useful information if anyone can snag a copy. At the least I'm sure the article footnotes would list plenty of good sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye out for it, but I don;t think its published yet. Its Winter 2007 and the current issue is spring 2007. So Winter comes before Spring in the US? You learn something knew every day! ... Seabhcan 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Winter 07 is online for $30 . I'll warm up my credit card and see what it gives me. ... Seabhcan 08:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. We have huge fights in this country about whether winter is before spring or vice versa. It's actually a more divisive issue here than the war in Iraq or gay marriage or other stuff like that, but we're good at hiding this conflict from citizens of other nations. So don't tell anyone I told you.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha.... Seabhcan 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put your credit card away, I just got that article for free. I'm not going to post it here because it'd be a copyvio, but if anybody wants to read it just leave a message on my talk page and I'll email it to you. I don't want to give out my email address. Fuck it, here it is. east.718 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Do you have the rest of the issue? ... Seabhcan 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have access to know the articles, but I need to know their names first. I'm pretty stupid, they're on their way. east.718 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy! east.718 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source if anyone is interested

message: THe following is my proposal for a new introduction. I feel that the current introduction is inadequate for the following reasons: 1. it cites only indirect support of terrorism by the U.S. while the relevant literature cites both indirect and direct terrorist practices perpetrated by the U.S. 2. It gives undue weight to Noam Chomsky, when in fact there is a plurality of notable critics that utilize the concept "U.S. state terrorism." 3. When it raises specific evidence of Nicaragua vs. The World Court in the International Court of Justice, this is in fact inappropriate content for introductions, which customarily deal with general and not specific claims. The following introduction makes general claims, anticipating the presentation of specific claims, in using quotes from the following sources:
1. Alexander George, professor of philosophy at Amherst, and editor of the earliest known full-length major study of "Western State Terrorism".
2. Arno Mayer, Emeritus professor of History at Princeton University.
3. Mark Selden, Phd. Yale University, professor of Sociology and History at Binghampton University
4. Richard Falk, Emeritus professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University
5. Noam Chomsky, an eminently notable stand-up comedian perpetually and transitorially residing in Lexington. 
Here follows the proposed introduction (purposefully presented in its longest form, and probably in requirement of appropriate trimming):
:::::The United States has been accused by some academics and activists of having directly committed acts of terrrorism and lending crucial suppport to foreign governments who have committed significant terrorist acts. These critics have employed the term "state terrorism" to describe singular acts as well as to conceptualize their recurrent tendencies. Among those that accept this alternative analytical framework U.S. governemts are typically considered responsible for a major portion of terrorist acts committed since the end of World War II. In the introduction to the earliest known book-length study of "Western State Terrorism", Alexander George remarked that "the plain and painful truth is that on any reasonable defintion of terrorism taken literally, the United States and its friends are the major supporters, sponsors, and perpetrators of terrorist incidents in the world today. (George, Alexander,ed. "Western State Terroism",1). Similarly in 2001, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, observed that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of "preemptive" state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled."  Likewise, Mark Selden, professor of Sociology and History at Binghampton, in the introduction to the anthology, "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century" maintains that the "record of Asian wars suggests that the range, scope and frequency of U.S. state terrorist actions have had no rival since World War II." {Selden, Mark, ed. "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, 13). Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton, arguing in the context of the Middle East conflict, states that "from any objective standpoint, Israel and the United States more frequently rely on terrorism, and in forms that inflict far greater quantums of suffering on their innocent victims, than do their opponents." (Falk, Richard. "The Terrorist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy, in "Western State Terrorism,ed. Alexander George, 108). Finally dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky has famously described the U.S. as "a leading terrorist state." . As can be expected of a theoretical framework that is outspokenly oppositional to established views, both the concepts of state terrorism, and the evidence presented for U.S. state terrorism are matters of considerable dispute. The following article attempts to elucidate the relevant concepts and present the evidentiary claims as well   as the objections to them.BernardL 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with Giovanni33 here. We should avoid lots of quotes in the intro, along with lists of names and positions. Summaries of positions are better. Also we should avoid self-referential language like "the following article refers to..." - Merzbow 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for those good sources, Bernard. That is what this article needs. Do any editors have any objections to the proposed changes to the introduction? Before we make changes we want to make sure we address any disputes and move forward with consensus. I'm still unsure about the Chomsky bit for the intro. I think it can saved, and added, too, but I'm ok with sticking it somwhere in the body instead. about the rest of your discussion and the sources, they most certainly are valid additions to the body of this article.Giovanni33 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd agree as long as the self-referential last sentence is left out ("This article..."). - Merzbow 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a New Introduction 

message: We must set and follow standard conventions for article titles. If state terrorism by the United States has been moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, then the same goes for Islamist terrorism. --BMF81 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that there is a wide consensus of scholars and statesmen that Islamist terrorism is indeed such. - Merzbow 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also wide consensus the the war in Iraq has increased terrorism. Since Mr. Bush and the USA's actions have increased terrorism and emboldended the Islamic terorrists, should he be listed as an enabler of Islamic Terrorism, like Ahmadinejad? Bmedley Sutler 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends how far removed you can be to be considered an "enabler". The accusations against Ahmadinejad and other Iran leadership is that they directly planned and ordered terrorist actions (and, in the case of Ahmadinejad, personally participated); having terrorism increase as an unintended side effect of something else one does isn't as strong of a claim. - Merzbow 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the islamic point of view there is certainly "christian terrorism" and number of scholarly articles about it, but we are NPOV eem, I mean er, were we talking about terrorism? Is this a scholarly discipline? Where is this teached? In School of the Americas? Seriously, we should get rid of word "terrorism" and all its siblings (terrorist, terrorism, terrorist organisation, etc) in articles and categories for good. Except in direct quotes of course. But all those "terror-" based words are inherently _loaded_ and POV. But until we can do so we need to keep at least some kind of equilibrium.   So if blowing up bombs in civilian installations is "terrorism" for Syria or Iran or United States then it is also "terrorism" for Russia and Israel. --Magabund 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: How long until a newbie can edit an article after it's locked?
Will somone add this to the quotes?
Ronald Reagan. March 1, 1985:
"Throughout the world the Soviet Union and its agents, client states, and satellites are on the defensive—on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They’re doing so on almost every continent populated by man—in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America. In making mention of freedom fighters, all of us are privileged to have in our midst tonight one of the brave commanders who lead the Afghan freedom fighters—Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq, we are with you.
They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I’ve spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they’re fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong."  Bmedley Sutler 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objections to adding it, but we should think about removing the quotes section altogether, since quotes sections are discouraged by Wikipedia layout guidelines (WP:LAYOUT). Relevant quotes are best worked into the article text in relevant sections. - Merzbow 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the famous Reagan quote. Also, you can edit now. I requested unprotection and it was granted. If there is a problem with anon IP's again, then a re semi-protect, will not affect you.Giovanni33 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see your addition, and added my own with background on Haq and Hezb-e-Islami. I then combined yours into mine. Maybe you can improve it. It is imperative that the hardline Islamic stances, and anti American positions of these 'Freedom fighters' be documented. Lets not forget that Reagan armed the Shiite radicals in Iran-Contra too. He certainly supported those Islamofascists, as long as they were anti commie. Were the Iranian Shiites fighting commies? Bmedley Sutler 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We really shouldn't have anything aside from quotes in the quotes section. Analysis and criticism of groups and figures should go in the article text in the appropriate section. This could go into a new Afghanistan section if a source can be cited accusing the US of terrorism in Afghanistan. - Merzbow 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Merzbow is right about this. Otherwise the quotes section turns into more than a quotes section. :)Giovanni33 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need an AFG section then. Bmedley Sutler 07:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still can't edit the article 

message: I'm new to this article.  It has a POV/disputed/synthesis/citecheck tag up top, but I can't figure out from this talk page which problems refer to which sections, other than the fact that the Guatemala section seems to have been in more dispute than the rest.  Can we make a list of which parts are disputed and in what way, and which parts aren't? I would be willing to do some cite checks if I knew where to start. BenB4 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the article is original research, in that it synthesizes sources to construct accusations of state terrorism where none were made. The article continues to use tendentious language to advance a position ("Application of the United States government's own definitions"; "The US State Department has admitted... but has continued to deny...). The choice of topics is selective, emphasizing some accusations (or implied accusations) of state terrorism and suppressing others (eg. sourced accusations of cultural terrorism) that might blunt the point the article tries to make. Throughout the article, points are presented as if they were matters of settled fact rather than fringe views. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it basically uses all logically fallacious arguments listed below.  Especially, Association fallacy, Appeal to authority and Appeal to motive.  It's rife for a big cleaning.  --Tbeatty 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, BenB4. I've asked the same questions, as have others, and it all comes down to vauge charges of OR and SYN violations but no specifics, so it can be corrected. When specifics are given, it turns out to be not a valid charge. I'm convinced there is no OR, or SYN. Editors here have not originated any new claims; all claims come from reputable, notable, and reliable sources. In fact, we've been taking out the weaker sources and replacing them with better ones. This is an ongoing process. I see no reason to have that disputed tag on this article because there is no real dispute here. Both sides are working to improve this article. Some people just don't like this subject and wanted it deleted.Giovanni33 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you bothered to read the neverending condemnations made by myself and numerous others that this page violates numerous policies and guidelines? That there is no real dispute here is laughable. Check virtually every section on this page and in the archives if this is still unclear to you.--MONGO 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you've already made up your mind, there is no point in asking. Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The question of reliability of sources has mostly been dealt with. The issue now is if certain sources and the text they support is relevant. For one, the Afghanistan stuff in the quotes sections that was recently added is not relevant since there is no accusation of terrorism against the US contained therein; it should be removed. Much of the The Philippines and Guatemala sections go into detail on issues that at most tangentially relevant, or are examinations of issues not mentioned by those cited accusing the US of terrorism. I just looked through the Philippines section and can't actually find an accusation that the US is committing or abetting terrorism ("allegations by human rights groups that [human-rights abuses] worsened" is not an accusation of terrorism). E San Juan's article seems to carefully not take the step of directly accusing the US of this, if I'm reading it correctly. We have to build the article around the arguments of reliable sources arguing this specific issue, and only expand upon elements of those arguments, not make our own we think are relevant. - Merzbow 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a third party referee (Mediator). That person needs to be non-American since most of the Americans working on this article are not impartial, and some even a bit jingoistic. Bmedley Sutler 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a third party referee (Mediator). That person needs to be an American since most of the non-Americans working on this article are not impartial, and some even a bit anti-American....thought I would reverse your comments to show you how stupid they look.--MONGO 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your only goal here to create stife and insult people? Please try to play a constructive role not a disruptive one. In answer to your insincere comment, an equally insincered nomination for Howard Zinn as referee. Bmedley Sutler 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As if your comment wasn't insulting? Go figure.--MONGO 10:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:POINT Try not to cause more anguish over this topic to prove a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about a handsome, intelligent Irish man? I'll happily mediate! What do you say, Mongo? ... Seabhcan 10:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need formal mediators here, just additional people willing to consider the issues raised with an open mind. - Merzbow 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Handsome" "Intelligent" Irish" "Man".  Usually we think of opposites in terms of a binary "either" "or" scenario.  But I have just witnessed a four-way system of opposites.  Multi-dimensional orthogonality.  "Ginger-headed", "college dropout" from "Dublin" passed out in the "men's" room is a more congruous image.  (just playing for those that uptight not to see a joke).  --Tbeatty 07:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I fail to see that my issues have been adressed.Ultramarine 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? None at all in any section? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which do you claim have been resolved?Ultramarine 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? its a straight forward question, I am not sure why the turn around game. My point is it will be easier to tag sections and then readdress those sections point by point, instead of tagging the article and claiming things were not resolved without stating what. Is this unreasonable? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many problems to not tag the entire article.Ultramarine 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can tell us which sections and issues you still have trouble with and why. Perhaps in a numbered list below. That would allow me to work on those issues. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A partial list includes the problems mentioned in "Sources (part 2)", " Graphical descriptions of rape and murder", " Conspiracy theory regarding the Algiers putsch of 1961", "Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism". More generally is the exclusion of opposing views, like regarding Chomsky's definition, and the general OR where editors make up their own definiton of "state terrorism" and claims that something violates this, like most of the Philippines section.Ultramarine 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the currently disputed sections? 

message: ...that the MoS semi-bot I used to clean up this article's sources a while back also converted all single brackets into double brackets (diff); an example would be turning "[he] quoted" into "he quoted." I don't have the time to do this, plus it's a low-priority issue, could someone please fix this? east.718 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just realized...