Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

FYI

Source on US terror campaigns.[1]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is good. We should incorporate some of this into the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nomen!BernardL (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this?[2]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A 1984 HRW report on Guatemala, some highlights

“Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”

“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)

“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)

“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)

Finally from the section called “The U.S. Role” (one may wonder why there are no sections for the “Botswana role” or the “Swiss role”, or the "Tahiti role", etc.)

“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)

“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)

“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala.”BernardL (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

arming of state terrorists, apologetics for state terrorists, defamation of critics of state terrorism. (and we could also add other HRW reports criticizing the training of perpetrators of state terror at the School of the Americas).BernardL (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

and a reminder...“Counterrevolutionary terror was inextricably tied to empire. Present at its birth in 1954 and nurturing through its adolescence in the 1960’s, the United States was a distant yet still involved patron during the Guatemalan genocide. Jimmy Carter would cut off direct military aid in 1977 owing to human rights abuses, yet the United States continued to provide training, funds, and material through other avenues. After Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration, the State Department vigorously lobbied Congress to restore direct support. (Grandin, Greg The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 188)BernardL (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fail to see any mention of state terrorism in the text. Could be added to an article critical of the US foreign policy, but not to claims of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Columbia?

This is a country waging a counter insurgency war with strong US backing, following the familiar pattern. Writers have called it state terrorism, as well. The lastest from Hugo Chavez, see:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23435878.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the only real terrorism in Colombia comes from FARC.

Chavez is rather disqualified from producing a NPOV position given he has openly sided with the terrorists and called for the overthrow of the democratically-elected Colombian government. Maybe we could have something on Chavez backing terrorism.

Plus I don't see how you can justify a new section when you've complained earlier that the addition of material where the US has accused others of state terrorism would make the article too long. You can't have your cake and eat it - choose one position or the other. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference whether the U.S. and Chavez consider each other enemies. That's a straw-man argument and, in fact, rather ludicrous because i doubt quite seriously that allies on the same side would ever accuse each other of sponsoring State Terror against one another.

Further, i have no doubt that there are many in South America who consider the shoes quite reversed -- that is, that the Colombian government is the actual set of terrorists (aided and abetted by the U.S.) and FARC as the honorable revolutionaries combating the untrammeled, immoral aggression of the two.

For my part, i don't take either side. I am content to merely report on both aspects of this argument. It seems odd, however, that you feel the U.S. POV on this is the only legitimate one that should be included. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that a classic violation of NPOV? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the topic of this article. Its State Terrorism. Hence, it must be terrorism by States. But there is more. Its state terrorism supported by the United States. Therefore any claims that Chavez is supporting terrorism, is complete off topic, unless the source says that the US is behind it, as is the case with Columbia. That is a country that is strongly tied and supported by the US, and has been characterized as practicing State terror. I'm all for expanding this article, provided it stays on topic. There is a lot more material to cover, which is why we should not expand the topic to cover other areas. This stance is consistent. Lastly, your comment about Chavez not being NPOV, this just tells me you don't understand the NPOV policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the topic was state terrorism (allegedly) supported by the United States. Now, it seems to be state terrorism (allegedly or not?) related to the United States. Which means that claims that Chavez is supporting terrorism will still be on-topic, provided the terrorism in question is related to the United States, which seems reasonable in this case. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the response to such accusations is usually accusation in return. I think if we include Chavez calling the US a state sponsor of terrorism, then we should include the US accusing him of the same. While it would be fair, I think it would in the end show the joke of a defense it is, considering all nations that accuse the US, are accused by the US. So which is first, the chicken or the egg? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was there a consensus reached among the established editors of this article for the major structural changes to which you are referring? BernardL (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for the name-change. But we are left with a newly titled article and that necessarily leads to a new scope. John Smith's (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be quite useful to include both the charges, each in their own heading. Similarly, the evidence for each should be clearly summed up. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any sources and material included must mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good article to be used for the Columbia section: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199607--.htmGiovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section

When discussing ways to reduce unnecessary material in the article - such as making blockquotes brief, which doesn't quite appear to have happened - I remember other editors suggesting there was no need for the quotes section at the end. Was there any reason why it wasn't removed? At the least it needs to be balanced up by some views from the other side, maybe two from each to make a total of four. John Smith's (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I had moved the quotes here for transfer to Wikiquotes, but did not continue the process and someone got tired of waiting and moved them back in. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tired of waiting does not sound much like a reason to keep them. :) I would have no objection to see them go: They add nothing useful to the article as they stand, and if anyone finds a use for any or all of them, they can always be reinserted. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tags and other changes

I'm not clear where there was consensus to remove those tags and make those other changes. I know I've made the point about the "long" tag before and the article is as long, if not more so, as it was before. Redpen said that someone "got bored" over removing the wikiquotes and restored them - it seems to me that so far no one is taking reducing the size of the article seriously. And before anyone complains about references being a large reason for the large article, I have already said that there is no need having upwards of five citations for a single point, especially if some are from heavily biased sources. So I've put the tag back to keep people focused on that. I've seen objections on synthesis since I was last here too.

Also I disagree that it is off-topic to have reference to a defence of US policy. As for "claimed", I don't mind if consensus agreed with removing those but it is an acceptable word in my opinion. John Smith's (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See above. There is consensus about my edits, and you have not explained your reverting my changes. You also revered my minor changes regarding the word "claimed," without explanation. If you feel there are SYN violations, please be specific so they can be fixed. I hope someone reverts you and restores my valid changes. I can do so as that would be a first revert, but will allow someone else to do so instead.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no consensus regarding the changes to the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There had been no objection to the idea of removing this material from the intro since the idea was posted on the talk page February 27th. See above.

Sufficient consensus by far, IMO. Let those who disagree argue their case instead of just reverting what has been, at least since February 27th, the consensus. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have objected to the OR of the article since long before the 27th with no response. Using this argumentation all of such material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had plenty response. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

None recently. You seem to argue that this is what counts.Ultramarine (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent my position: "recently" never figured into it. "Since its presentation" would be more like it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My position regarding the OR tag was presented a long time ago with no response recently. I fail to see how this make it less valid and there is no policy either. WP:BOLD could apply, but to both sides, of course.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is "60.48.29.10"? Someone posted on the article whilst not logged in. John Smith's (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it's not clear it's obvious that we should contact an administrator and ban the entire range of addresses starting with 60.48.-.-. And since we're not sure, we might as well throw in 60.49.-.- and 60.47.-.-, as well. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky, what are you talking about? I just asked who the user was. You should calm down rather than make suggestions like that. John Smith's (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

The Vatican[3] has stated that abortion is a form of terrorism. So we should probable have a section on legal abortion. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird, but unless you have more (an official statement, for instance), it's hardly even trivia (and this article is more than long enough without a trivia section). — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be more trivial than many of the source now cited in the article? In the spirit of the rest of this article, we can expand with citing how many abortions there are each year in the US and various other arguments by those against abortion. If we use the rest of the article as a standard, there is no need for these sources to mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not constructive.

You are arguing that we should remove such material from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't I done that since I came here? — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reuters link: [4].Ultramarine (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing as above, really. Problems: (1) It is just this one guy, not the Vatican, making the statement; (2) It is unclear what his statement really is, and whether the abortion case is intended as an example of "terrorism with a human face" or an example of "the media manipulating language". — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article now quotes similar statements from individuals, like "San Juan" or Chomsky. Why is this person less noteworthy? Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not that he is less noteworthy; it is that you are stating that "The Vatican has stated ...", which is most likely a misattribution and most certainly (so far) a {{failed verification}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about "Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees Catholic doctrine"? Ultramarine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We could include that, if we had a section on abortion. It is not nearly enough to justify such a section. A Vatican statement just might have been enough. A Vatican official policy probably would have been. Just this one guy? Nope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not enough in order to have a section when the only source accusing the US of state terrorism in the Philippines is a mock trial organization? Or a section on the Nicaragua vs. US trial, only citing an interview in Pakistani television? Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is indeed the only source, it is not enough for me. But I'm not ready to say it is. What's the deal with the other references in that section? Have they {{failed verification}}? Are they {{irrel}}evant? Are they used for {{syn}}thesis? Are there other problems? I haven't checked. Have you? If so, why don't you tag them accordingly? If not, how can you be so sure it is the only one? — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the material in the Philippine section do not accuse the US of state terrorism or terrorism. Some accuse the Philippine government without mentioning the US, some indirectly blame the US but do not accuse the US of state terrorism or state terrorism. The argument seem to be that if there is one source accusing the US of state terrorism, then we can add all these other sources. That is like citing this source regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just flat-out wrong. If you have actually read the sources in question in some detail then you are either lying or just phonetically-challenged; if you haven't read the sources in question then you should not be making these obviously wrong statements that are utterly contrary to what's posted. Which one is it?

To recap for what must be the thirtieth time, by now: there are at least six sources there which overtly make the statement "state terror" and associate the U.S. with either sponsorship or direct involvement. Of those six sources, one -- the "mock trial organization", as you put it -- is a public statement with multiple Philippine legal and political scholars and some six (? five? eight? i forget) major human rights organizations as signatories. That boosts the number of indirect sources up to something like twelve, now, right? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack. You know the policies regarding this already. Do not continue. Again, the some sources have accused the US of terrorism does not mean that the US is responsible for everything in the Philippines and that we can cite every source mentioning a problem in the country, many times not even mentioning the US, as being more examples of US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack at all. A personal attack would be as if i called you something like a pediaphile, or said something about your mother, or something like that. I haven't done that. I've simply stated facts:

• I know i have already pointed out to you five times in the last two weeks that this section includes at least five different sources that directly associate the U.S. with state terror in the Philippines.
• I know, also, that at least two other editors have done the same, one at great length over the course of an argument that went on for hours, over the course of two days.

These facts indicate that you cannot truthfully assert that nobody has shown you the sources nor that your attention was never drawn to them. That leaves only three arguments left to support your ludicrous (in the context of this two week long "discussion"), demonstrably false statement that the section is lacking sources: either you have simply failed to read the sources, or you have read them but failed to understand the sources, or you know the sources are there but are pretending as if they aren't because to do so is more convenient for you intended purpose.

So which one is it? 09:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You completely avoided my point. Most of the sources do not mention the US or if they do they do not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. As such they are irrelevant or violate WP:SYN. Again, That is like citing this source [5] regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty. Ultramarine (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who are avoiding my point. Regardless of what "most" of the sources do or don't say, the entire section contains six sources that refer back to multiple organizations that make these claims. All sources included directly refer back to these six articles.

You know this. It has been pointed out to you many times. So i am going to ask you again:

• Because I know i have already pointed out to you five times in the last two weeks that this section includes at least five different sources that directly associate the U.S. with state terror in the Philippines, and --
• Because I also know that at least two other editors have done the same, one at great length over the course of an argument that went on for hours, over the course of two days.

I conclude from these facts that you cannot truthfully assert that nobody has shown you the sources nor that your attention was never drawn to them. That leaves only three arguments left to support your demonstrably false statement that the section is lacking relevant sources: either you have simply failed to read the sources, or you have read them but failed to understand the sources, or you know the sources are there but are pretending as if they aren't because to do so is more convenient for you intended purpose.

Which one is it? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out one source. The included Amnesty source [6] and material does not even mention the US so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. Thus irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: this is a point that has been explained to you repeatedly, by me, over the course of months and years. I will review it briefly:

• Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines is there a specific statement that says a source cannot be included unless it mentions the title within its text.
• Virtually all historical, military, legal, and political articles include validating examples, explanations, and elaborations of primary points made within the article
• This source clearly refers back to information presented in another source that alleges State Terror by the United States.

This information is provided as validation that the information upon which these allegations are based are widely understood to be true. It is irrelevant whether or not this source mentions the U.S. -- and, in fact, that increases its value as a source, because it indicates a position of extreme neutrality regarding the sources and causes of the events in question.

Thus, the use of this article is utterly uncontroversial and clearly in line with Wikipedia policy.

This has already been explained to you repeatedly. That you are now making the argument again suggests either that:

• You have forgotten what was previously explained to you
• You are ignoring what was previously explained to you
• You are rejecting Wikipedia guidelines and engaging in Wikilawyering (i.e. -- "tendentious editing").

I don't have any idea which one of these is most accurate, but i am most curious and would appreciate reading your explanation. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a policy prohibiting this. WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Amnesty does not reach the same conclusion, it does not accuse the US of these crimes and there is no mention of state terrorism. Again, this is like citing this source [7] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty. Ultramarine (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: it's not synthesis if the material has already been presented by a primary source. This has already been explained to you repeatedly. That you are now making the argument again suggests either that:

• You have forgotten what was previously explained to you
• You are ignoring what was previously explained to you
• You are rejecting Wikipedia guidelines and engaging in Wikilawyering (i.e. -- "tendentious editing").

I don't have any idea which one of these is most accurate. Which one is it? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing that we could cite this source [8] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism against militia groups

Militia groups argue that for example the Waco Siege is terrorism by the US government.[9] So we should probable have a section on this. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At first sight: Why not? Sounds like their argument follows the line of the government definition: "activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population ...".

But this is a WP:FRINGE view, isn't it? (Honest question; I really don't know many hold it, though it is my impression that it is far from mainstream.) I suspect you need a better source. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is more obscure than for example unknown local Philippine websites/organizations or anarchist magazines.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you see problems with the sources used in the article, tag them, for example with {{verify credibility}}. Then we'll have something to work on. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss E. San Juan, Jr. who has 3 direct quotes in this article. How is this far left individual so noteworthy that he should be given this much space? While at the same far right militia groups are excluded?Ultramarine (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not, until you've tagged the ones you have a problem with.

Let's not, until you take that subject to a better suited section of the talk page.

Let's not, indeed, until you are ready to discuss one thing at a time. To the best of my knowledge, Waco and San Juan have little to do with one another. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged. Note also that this is reported by Associated Press. The argumentation is related. It seems to be a double standard to give so much space to this far left individual if far right groups are excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see those tags; now perhaps someone will protest them, and we'll get down to the real issues.

To your note: Are far right groups excluded? (I excluded fringes above, but if anyone has excluded far right groups, I was unaware.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The milita groups mentioned in the Associated Press story are not more fringe than E. San Juan, Jr.Ultramarine (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, Ultramarine; since you consider E. San Juan Jr to be a "fringe" commentator on Philippine politics and culture, i presume that you will be able to recommend for me a suitably notable commentator on Philippine culture and politics who is more notable and mainstream than he is. So please: tell us all who you consider to be a suitably mainstream commentator on Philippine politics, culture, and human rights. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should I do that? Discuss the issue at hand, not another person. Why should the far left E. San Juan, Jr. receive so much space if we at the same exclude far right militia groups?Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Apparently you don't know of any other commentator discussing the Philippines. Correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We could mention Amnesty or HRW who does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. Back to the point. Why should the far left E. San Juan, Jr. receive so much space if we at the same exclude far right militia groups?Ultramarine (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine. Those are not commentators on Filipino culture, politics, and human rights. Those are human rights organizations which operate within a very strict and limited set of guidelines. So again, i will ask you: who do you consider to be a notable commentator that regularly discusses the Philipines' culture, politics, and human rights situation? Remember, please, that you have yet to demonstrate that you have any understanding of the Philippines. Thus, your assertions that San Juan Jr is a "marxist", "fringe", "not mainstream", "not notable", and "unreliable" are all suspicious. Unless you can come up with a reliable commentator that discusses these issues as a counterexample, your assertions will be rejected as the ravings of someone who doesn't know the first thing at all about what they've chosen to argue over. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard here, please demonstrate yourself that you "have any understanding of the Philippines.". You want to include the San Juan material, then it you who must prove the sources. Read WP:V. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So if you want to claim notability, you must provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are avoiding my question. It is you who are challenging San Juan as a reliable, notable source. We have already provided a long list of evidence establishing this: Fulbright Scholar, chair of the NYC Philippines' forum, notable academic, specialist in the field, widely published commentator, etc. You, however, maintain that he is not notable enough. Our evidence has already been presented. Now it's time for you to show us what you mean by "notable commentator".

Who do you consider a notable commentator on Philippine culture, politics, and human rights? if you cannot provide one then we can only conclude that you haven't the slightest knowledge of what you're arguing about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of claims, no sources. Lets just look at Google Scholar. Searching for "American Militia" gives more hits than searching on "E San Juan Jr" even assuming that there is just a single person with that name.Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you don't know of any Philippine commentators more notable or more reliable than San Juan. Good. I'm glad we've set that to rest. You obviously agree either that a) you don't know enough about the subject in question to be arguing over it, or b) that there are no better commentators than San Juan. That issue is, now, dead.

Now, regarding your claim that the "American Militias" can be used as a source: i'm perfectly willing to consider them. Find me some sources that say "state terrorism" and we'll start working them up. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already presented a source showing that Militia groups accuse the US of terrorism. Again, no reason to give less weight to them than to San Juan as per the Google Scholar search.Ultramarine (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until i see it in a sandbox, in the context of your proposed edit, i really can't comment one way or another on it, can i? For all i know, you'll be wanting to paste it at the top of the article, above the introduction, with a headline that reads "I WIN!!!! THESE PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!". Obviously, that would not be acceptable. So until you can show us a sandbox and explain how you want to use it i cannot give any more comment. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yourself recently cited WP:BOLD. No double standard please. If you do not have any factual arguments against adjusting the article to give at least equal weight to the views of San Juan and the Militia groups, then I will make the adjustments.Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited "bold" in reference to a name change -- a name change that has provided you with more space to make your arguments. Oddly, however, you haven't actually made any arguments -- you've just been sitting around here, plaintively harmonizing with yourself about things nobody else here believes to be sane, reasonable, informed, or relevant.

Even so, when it came to adding the Philippine material i put the stuff up for inspection and waited a full 6 weeks -- as we are all asking you to do.

What's the problem, Ultramarine? Why are you so unwilling to cooperate with your fellow editors? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A name change if far greater than changing some of the article material. I am certainly willing to cooperate. However, you are refusing to follow policy. Again, ff you do not have any factual arguments against adjusting the article to give at least equal weight to the views of San Juan and the Militia groups, then I will make the adjustments.Ultramarine (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And unless you present them in sandbox and work with the other editors here towards incorporating them responsibly you will be reverted. Why are you so unwilling to cooperate with your fellow editors, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no sandbox requirement. I am discussing the issue here. I have presented sources showing the San Juan is no more notable than Milita groups. Please discuss any objections you have to adjusting the article accordingly.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine -- by overwhelming consensus, the regular editors on this article have asked that all major edits first be floated in a sandbox before introduction to the article page. This is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy. In light of that, i will ask you once again: why do you find it so difficult to cooperate with the wishes of your fellow editors? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What policy are you citing regarding sandbox requirements? No straw poll has been made so current editor opinion is unknown. I am cooperating, it is you who have recently been blocked for using sockpuppets and 3RR violation in order ignore other editors and revert to the version you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)No, there is no 'requirement' that material go through a sandbox process. However, the WP:BRD process amounts to the same thing; and for editors who frequent this artcile, following the sandbox process prior to placing material in the article is a way to build concensus without the strife of a Revert setting off an edit war. In general, the process of 'sandboxing of new material' has worked. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very willing to discuss any factual arguments. Discussion is the way resolve disputes. Do you have objection to adjusting the San Juan material as per above? Ultramarine (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism against animals

Animal rights activists see much terror against animals.[10] So we should probable have a section on this. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you just trying to make a point? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you seeing a point? I am just discussing.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am seeing looks at first glance to be a blatant attempt at disruptive editing. However, I was asking for clarification in case there was actually an attempt to improve WP that I had missed. The response leads me to believe my initial interpretation was in fact valid. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. "Terror" is not "terrorism". — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good response. Lets have the same standard for the rest of the article.Ultramarine (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not dealing with "state terror" as any sort of legal, ethical, or tactical idea. It's a generalist usage of "terror" applied to humanity in general and not to any particular state or government in particular. Thus, in an article about "State Terrorism", it's obviously inappropriate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism or state terrorism. So how can you claim that it only applies to humanity?Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can call anything state terrorism" revisited

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism or state terrorism. So how can you claim that it only applies to humanity?Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're making obviously false statements again, Ultramarine. That's, what -- the sixth time in the last 6 hours? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there is a definition of terrorism or state terrorism generally agreed on?Ultramarine (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already been over this many times. WheezyF demolished this argument only a week or two ago. Yes, i am saying that there is a clearly delineated concept of "State Terrorism" and "State Terror" which informed people discussing this issue can generally agree upon. Some reject that this definition is useful or meaningful, others insist that it must be more precisely defined before it can be properly applied, while still others argue that the idea is already defined well enough that it should be enshrined in legal doctrine. Despite these disagreements, there is no dispute over what is generally meant by the phrase "State Terror". Stone put to sky (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How can there be a clearly defined concept when there are so many different versions with for example the UN having four different ones regarding terrorism? Could you give the definition of state terrorism and source for that there is no dispute over this? Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I think it's time for you to go back and reconsider Supermassive Black Holes.

Or, to put it another way: just because there's no legal definition doesn't mean that there's no generally agreed upon definition. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, source for your claim that there is a " generally agreed upon definition". Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A source? Look at the article. Multiple sources are presented there. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Which give many different defintions showing that there is no "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually what the sources show is that there is a "generally agreed upon definition", just that there is no formal definition. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources disagree, so there is no "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The sources are largely in agreement, and that is quite clear from the definitions. Please remember not to make false statements, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources have very different definitions. If there was an agreement, then the UN could easily have reached a single definiton.Ultramarine (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is clearly a false statement. "Legal agreement" is not equivalent to "scholarly consensus". Stone put to sky (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, give source for you claim of "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, again. I will take that to be acknowledgment that you no longer have anything new to add and that this issue should now be considered closed. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no source for you claims. if you any regarding a general agreed definiton, regardless of regarding "Legal agreement" or "scholarly consensus", then add it here.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you appear to be attempting to return to the absurd claim that "anyone can call anything state terrorism". That is one point at which I can no longer by any stretch of the imagination assume good faith in your editing presence here and based on that fact come to the conclusion that you are simply being disruptive. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue at hand, do you have any source stating there is a general agreement regarding what terrorism or state terrorism is? Regardless of regarding "legal agreement" or "scholarly consensus"?Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time with someone who is basing arguments on the absurd claim "anyone can call anything state terrorism". Is that your posisition, yes or no. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My position is that in this article most of the material and sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism or even the US. It has simply become a waste dump for various criticisms of the US or allied governments that anonymous Wikipedia editor themselves think are state terrorism by the US. This is OR and not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I will not waste my time with someone who is attempting to base their argument on "anyone can call anything state terrorism". It appears that that statement is your line of reasoning in this discussion. I am asking for a yes or no response. Is your position "anyone can call anything state terrorism". TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia, no. Sources are required or it is OR as per above. More generally, many people have called lots of things terrorism, including abortion or the treatment of animals, as shown elsewhere. Are they wrong? Since there is no agreed on definition of what terrorism is, that is difficult to prove. The lack of agreed on defintion makes it a matter of opinion.Ultramarine (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a straighforward 'yes' or 'no' and did not recieve it. Do I understand your position correctly: "anyone can call anything state terrorism" will only be used if the phrase is attributable to a specific person/group TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a notable source states claims/opinions of terrorism by someone, then we can certainly cite this in Wikipedia.Ultramarine (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And so my assumption of good faith in your editing presence in the article will not be proved false by a return to the "anyone can call anything state terrorism" * baloney that has previously come from your pen? (*unless you are presenting such arguments from another source.) Again, I am looking for a simple 'yes' or 'no' to clarify that I understand.12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia anyone can call anything state terrorism and it would be difficult to disprove due to lack of definition. In Wikipedia, no. Sources required which make that claim.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem very reluctant to commit to a simple premise: you will use "anyone can call anything state terrorism" only when you attribute the statement to a specific agent and I can assume good faith in your presence here OR you will use "anyone can call anything state terrorism" in contexts where you are not attributing the statement to a verifiable individual and I will have full reason to consider your presence here disruptive. It seems a fairly simple position for you to choose one or the other. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a statement should always be attributed and have a source. Applies to all statements.Ultramarine (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope then that we will not have to re-revisit this topic again. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine's new suggestions

Ultramarine, if you really feel the article would benefit from the three (is that how many new topics you suggested in the last few hours?) new areas of 'state terrorism and the US', I would suggest that you follow the general procedure for material for this article and bring proposed draft content to the talk page or a sandbox and let other editors comment on specifics. Otherwise, I see the above threads as simply unproductive distraction and I would suggest that other editors ignore your comments until there is some actual content to work with. Even if your proposed sections end up as being not appropriate for this article (and my initial assumption is that they aren't) your reliably sourced content would likely be of value to some other article(s) within Wikipedia. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a policy has not been followed previously with the whole Philippine section being added without discussion or even an edit commentary. Also, see WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to be bold, but if you do not work with the other editors prior to your inclusion of new material into the article, you can expect that the article will be reverted to previous status and you will be asked to bring a discussion of your materials to the talk page anyway. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly intend to work and discuss with other editors. But please do not make claims of some version being "consensus". From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version".Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed where I labeled a version "the concensus version". Can you point that out to me? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A general point to the other editors who have claimed this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You made massive additions, even though opposed, and made massive deletions--all without consensus. You also reverted even minor improvements and changes I made, without explanation. This editing style is not appreciated and will be reverted until you play nice here.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed the factual issues in sections above. Please discuss any objections there. Also, please do no do blank deletion, including removing disputed tags today added to text without any explanation.Ultramarine (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things you've discussed and editors opposed it and reverted you, last week. Waiting a week does not change the situation, and you should not just keep restoring. That is edit warring. The objections have already been provided, so no reason to repeat. But it should be clear you don't have consensus to make these changes to the article as of yet. The same goes with that very unhelpful SYN tag, which many editors clearly have opposed, with ample explanation already given more than once. Lastly, I did not blank delete, I even kept the main point of your long section--all from one source, which, as other editors pointed out is undue weight. However, that is what you did: blank delete, in your blind revert, which, like JohnSmith, reverted various small changes without explanation.Giovanni33 (talk)

If you have any factual arguments, please continue the discussions above. You have given no explanation at all for deleting the today added verify credibility tags regarding E. San Juan, Jr.. The opposing view material regarding the rape is appropriate considering the very long critical material including a quote lasting a several paragraphs. Undue weight and violations of npov to not allowed the opposing views to be presented equally.Ultramarine (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I already did. That you have no consensus and your massive deletions and insertions of whole sections all from one source is factual. Also, your material doesn't give opposing views, it only states that they don't know, and that it's under investigation, which is what I left in there, btw. Balance and undue weight is not a concept that means equal space, as you seem to suggest, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not responded to the factual arguments and not responded at all lately. There is no permanent veto against changes simply by refusing to discuss an issue. Again, you have given no explanation at all for deleting the today added verify credibility tags regarding E. San Juan, Jr.. Regarding the rape, either the both sides should be allowed to present in full or both be equally reduced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add the tags back, and I won't oppose that. I opposed your blind revert and most of your other changes for specific reasons already stated, and out of principal for consensus. And, yes, there is a permanent veto if consensus does not change. Waiting a week without seeing any changes in consensus does not make it ok to then make the disputed changes. About equal coverage, that is now how it works. What makes this one source so important that it needs its whole section? Also, what it does is not add anything interesting, it just repeats itself, bloating the whole section to twice its size. If you get consensus to add that much text from that one source, I won't oppose you. So far you are the only editor who wants it, and others have reverted you.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion today above you would have learned that from Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version". No, you do not have a permanent veto against changes simply by refusing to discuss issues. See WP:NOT: Wikpipedia is not a democracy but instead uses discussion to resolve issues. Not to mention that no straw polls have been made so the current editor opinion is unknown. Regarding the rape opposing view material, if the very long quote should be in + other material, then also the opposing views which are actually smaller in size.Ultramarine (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bold is not an excuse to edit war, esp. against consensus. If you fail to convince others, then you do have to respect consensus until you can change opinion, or seek the other resolutions to the dispute though Rfc, etc. That is not what you are doing. You are edit warring by making massive changes that have not been discussed or explained, or have been clearly opposed per the talk page. I can not revert again, but if another editor does, I hope you reconsider your editing style here and work with others instead of provoking edit wars, again. I note that you are already at 3RR, if not more. I also note that your revert was once again a blind revert undoing other minor changes, which is rather careless, and disrespectful considering I have complained about this.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Ultramarine needs to gain consensus before making big changes that most other editors disagree with.69.228.198.235 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss any objections like I do instead of just blankly revert.Ultramarine (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Violations of WP policy

1. Please read WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Most of the articles violate this. The sources do not accuse the US of anything or not of terrorism or state terrorism. All such material should be removed. Otherwise we could for example add this view[11] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Please read WP:Undue Weight and WP:NPOV. Most of the article only present one side of the story or only presents the opposing side as a straw man. Take the very long section regarding the rape. There is no need for a long graphical description of the rape. The only purpose seem to be in order to shock as propaganda. If such a long section is included regarding this one rape, then also the opposing material must be included in full.Ultramarine (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

3. See WP:FRINGE. A marxist writer, E. San Juan, Jr., is given 4 long quotes in the articles. No reason to include such a fringe far left view from one person. If included, no justification for excluding for example the view of militia groups that they are the victims of terrorism by the US government.[12]Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare your citing poilcies. We know those policies and none of these policies are being violated here, except there is one policy you are currently in violation of. Its called the 3 revert rule. You make your 4th revert against consensus, under 24 hours. I suggest you self revert now, to avoid getting reported and blocked. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted, I removed another piece of OR as per 1. But in the spirit of discussion I will discuss it here. Since it does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism it is either OR and WP:SYN to include it or it is irrelevant. See my point 1 above. If no factual arguments are given, it will be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Similarly, The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace reports that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.

Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, GABRIELA, Anakbayan, Karapatan, KMU, and others (Petras and Abaya 2006). They were protesting Arroyo's repressive taxation, collusion with foreign capital tied to oil and mining companies that destroy people's livelihood and environment, fraudulent use of public funds, and other anti-people measures. Such groups and individuals have been tagged as "communist fronts" by Arroyo's National Security Advisers, the military, and police; the latter agencies have been implicated in perpetrating or tolerating those ruthless atrocities.

— Dr. E. San Juan, Jr., "

I don't care what your purported reasons are, you removed it earlier, and it was restored, so when you removed it again, that counts as a revert, making it 4 reverts within a day. That is a violation and unless you self revert you risk being blocked. Which is it going to be?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. Now answer the factual arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you avoided the issue by talking about your reasons for removal. This is irrelevant. Deal with the real issue here: your edit warring and violation of 3RR rule. Its a serious rule and a serious violation, esp. for someone touting policies its hypocritical at best. Are you going to self revert or be blocked? Answer that.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, see above. In order I avoid any more for not having a factual discussion I have restored the material for now. But if you refuse the discuss the factual arguments I presented, then I will remove the material again.Ultramarine (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is smart of you. I'll look over the arguments and address them. I hope other editors will do and that we can come to some consensus on the issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See earlier comments above regarding consensus. If you do not respond, I will remove this material, as well as the other material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Please also respond to the other points or this material will be removed/reduced.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And you will be reverted. Again. For reasons that have already been given, repeatedly, over and over again, over the course of days, weeks, months, and years.

In the end this comes down to one simple problem: you have not presented any facts. None. Zilcho. The Big Goose-egg. Absolutimundily negatory. Of the arguments you have made there is only one -- that there is only one side presented -- that has any basis in reality. Yet there is nothing in Wikipedia that says "In cases where one side has failed to respond or acknowledge the grievances of another, neither side can be presented." Which is what you're arguing.

Or, if you're not, then the solution is simple: present the other side. Except that you refuse to do that to. Which then means it isn't our problem -- it's yours.

Of your last few suggestions you have yet to present a single source that mentions "state terror". As has already been repeatedly pointed out to you, ad nauseum: all sections of this article have multiple sources alleging state terror (of one form or another) by the united states. While it may not be true that every source contains the words "State Terror", it is undeniably true that every source included validates facts presented in another source that clearly does make such a statement.

So your pathway is clear, Ultramarine: find us some sources that clearly mention "state terrorism" and start to build on them. I will be glad to help you in that endeavor.

Finally, i'm putting this in a font that will make it utterly impossible for you to miss what i'm saying:

THE EDITORS HERE HAVE OVERWHELMINGLY AND REPEATEDLY REJECTED THESE ARGUMENTS WITH PAGES UPON PAGES OF CLEAR EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLES. PLEASE GIVE THEM UP. THEY ARE INVALID REASONS FOR MAKING YOUR SUGGESTED CHANGES. PLEASE RESTRICT YOURSELF TO ONE TOPIC AT A TIME, AND PLEASE INTRODUCE YOUR EDITS IN A SANDBOX SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THEM.

And yes -- this last time that the Philippine material was introduced it sat up in Sandbox for a full SIX WEEKS -- 42 DAYS -- AND THEN SOME before we finally added it to the article. So no more whining about how we added it categorically and are demanding of you standards we do not apply across the board -- that is a clearly false statement that does not assume good faith on our part. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouting is boring. No, Wikipedia policy does not allowed original research. Again, see WP:SYN and my point 1 above. Regarding "consensus", also see above. Please respond to the other points I presented. No double standard please, you yourself quoted WP:BOLD in a section recently and when you originally adding the Philippine material you did so without discussion and even an edit commentary. But is you have any factual arguments, please state them and I will be happy to respond.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouting? You really need to get out more.

There is no original research. There is no synthesis. These points have already been explained to you repeatedly. Unless you can make specific reference to specific statements then there really is nothing more to talk about.

Finally: the Philippine material had been absent for the article for nearly 6 months before it was re-introduced. When it was re-introduced it remained in sandbox for 6 weeks before it was posted to the article. This was done deliberately in order to offer other editors the opportunity to comment and hone the material. It is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We ask, therefore, that you please give us all the same courtesy. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack noted. I have already mentioned a specific example, see the quote above. As well as mentioning Amnesty and HRW quotes in section above. I will repeat this again. Since the material does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism it is either OR and WP:SYN to include it or it is irrelevant. See my point 1 above. If no factual arguments are given, this material will be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Political Nature of the Arrests, Disappearances, Torture, and Killings" states "Amnesty International reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution." The AI report continues: "the arrest and threatened arrest of leftist Congress Representatives and others on charges of rebellion, and intensifying counter-insurgency operations in the context of a declaration by officials in June of 'all-out-war' against the New People's Army . . . [and] the parallel public labeling by officials of a broad range of legal leftist groups as communist 'front organizations'...has created an environment in which there is heightened concern that further political killings of civilians are likely to take place.|Amnesty International|"

"Similarly, The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace reports that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.

Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, GABRIELA, Anakbayan, Karapatan, KMU, and others (Petras and Abaya 2006). They were protesting Arroyo's repressive taxation, collusion with foreign capital tied to oil and mining companies that destroy people's livelihood and environment, fraudulent use of public funds, and other anti-people measures. Such groups and individuals have been tagged as "communist fronts" by Arroyo's National Security Advisers, the military, and police; the latter agencies have been implicated in perpetrating or tolerating those ruthless atrocities.

— Dr. E. San Juan, Jr., "

"According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

Page Break for Convenience, Pt 1

There were no personal attacks there.

And no, this will not be removed, and if you continue to edit-war then we will be heading off to AN/I for a chat over there.

This material is included specifically to show that the events used to justify the allegations a) indisputably occurred, b) are reported accurately by those commentators which allege state terrorism by the united states, and c) are clearly characterizable as terrorist in nature. These sources are relevant to the article and reliable. They stay. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"You really need to get out more." is a personal attack, just one done today. If you continue, I will certainly report you.

None of this material accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. It violates WP:SYN to argue that they report the same thing as the sources which claim state terrorism. I will quote from WP:SYN again, "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed, above, by multiple editors. See above, the big black heavy stuff you seem to think is "shouting". Obviously it wasn't written largely enough for you, because here you are already neglecting it, repeating yourself, repeating yourself, repeating yourself.... Stone put to sky (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh -- no. "You need to get out more" is a comment upon your willful interpretation of big, heavy fonts as "shouting", even despite the clearly stated "[Because you seem to keep ignoring or forgetting points that have already been made to you repeatedly] I'm going to type this up so you can't miss it". There's no "personal attack" in that, and your interpretation of it is just silly. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate and against policy that you use personal attacks. Please discuss the factual issues. Again, the above material certainly do not reach the same conclusion, thus violating WP:SYN. If Amnesty does not even mention the US, thus cannot be accusing the US of terrorism, this material is irrelevant for this article.Ultramarine (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: there was no personal attack. Once again: the above material is clearly relevant to the article and reliably sourced. See the big black heavy stuff you want to call "shouting". Stone put to sky (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"You really need to get out more." is a personal attack. Do you apologize? Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you apologize for making a personal attack against me when characterizing my bold fonts as "shouting"? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I will report you.Ultramarine (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky has been warned for his incivility. Please do not continue in the future.Ultramarine (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added disputed tages to some of the material in the Philippine section while we discuss. To repeat: This material does not mention terrorism or state terrorism or in some cases even the US. As such it violates WP:SYN to argue that this is in fact evidence for state terrorism or terrorism or that this is the same violations other sources speak of. Again, from WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are under a clearly misguided notion if you think that EVERY source within this or any article has to SPECIFICALLY include the name of the article within the source material. Simply and utterly WRONG. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again read WP:SYN as per above. I will add another. WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Claims of terrorism or state terrorism are certainly exceptional claims. Thus, material and sources not mentioning this have no justification for inclusion.Ultramarine (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you two even talking about the same thing? It seems to me Ultra is arguing that the source must be on the topic of the article, while Pen is arguing that the source need not include the name of the article.

The name is a red herring. Drop it. (Ow.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And now back again to REDFLAG - are you the reincarnation of Raggz? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not Raggz. Please respond the argument.Ultramarine (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We went through the bogus REDFLAG argument in January. Check the archives. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bogus. The archives are probably a hundred pages. More exact place or unverifiable. WP:SYN also applies. Again: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the new scope of the article, I can see a REDFLAG argument carrying more weight. As long as the scope was explicitly allegations, there was hardly any exceptional quality to our claims. Now that "allegations" have been dropped (ow!), the recontextualized claims seem far more exceptional. Far enough? I don't know. But the January conclusion no longer need apply. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: SYNTH - it has been explained numerous times TODAY (thank you Stone), not to mention how many other times previously, and you keep coming back with "but that source doesn't say the words 'state terrorism' and so it cannot be used in the article". I have no reason to believe that yet another explanation will make it clear or change your mind. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No justification have been given for ignoring Wikipedia policy. If we do not follow this policy, we could cite this source [13] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no he doesn't. At least, I cannot see that he does. Got a diff?

As I search through the talk page for "words", all I see is you and Stone talking about the "words 'state terrorism'". I cannot see that Ultra uses the word "words" at all. And even if he has, and it has since been redacted ...

Please state your own case, rather than put words in the mouths of others. That would make it slightly easier for third parties to follow.

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See above:

Almost all of the material in the Philippine section do not accuse the US of state terrorism or terrorism. Some accuse the Philippine government without mentioning the US, some indirectly blame the US but do not accuse the US of state terrorism or state terrorism. The argument seem to be that if there is one source accusing the US of state terrorism, then we can add all these other sources. That is like citing this source regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is the titles of the two sections "State terrorism and propaganda" and "U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism". Neutral would be to start with "Claims of..." or "Allegations of...". I tried to change to such a more neutral title. Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your usage of english is improper and violates Wikipedia style. Further, these are weasel words which appear to be introduced solely to skew the POV of the article. You will need to come up with something better than your proposed changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any problem with "Claims of U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism" and "Claims of U.S. propaganda about state terrorism"? POV is to claim that these things are facts.Ultramarine (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A title is not a claim. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A title can certainly claim or state as a fact. The current title implies that the charges against the US are facts when they are only claims.Ultramarine (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that "hypocrisy" is POV (and how!), but I'm not sure "propaganda" is.

I never questioned "propaganda" before you tagged it, and while I can see the point that it is rather a charged word, it refers to a phenomenon that is undeniably present. "Claims of propaganda" just doesn't cut it. I'd welcome a less charged word, or even a brand new title, if it retained the clarity of the current. I've no suggestion though.

As for "hypocrisy", how about "State Terrorism likened to Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict"? — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the last but it is limited since Chomsky also makes other accusations. How about "Chomsky's view on U.S. state terrorism" and "Falk's view on U.S. state terrorism"? Or something similar. Maybe just "Noam Chomsky" and "Richard Falk".Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's missing the angle. It's telling us "who", not "what". What is this section about? Hypocrisy? Double standards? Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict? I can see those. Chomsky and Falk? Nope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda is also a view, not a fact. How about "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" and "State Terrorism seen as propaganda"?Ultramarine (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the former, though I wonder if leaving out "military operations" will unbalance it. Let me ponder it.

As for the latter: "Seen as" is not the angle. In fact, the angle seems to be a continuation of the "hypocrisy" angle.

"State Terrorism and the First World"? Or just drop the header to include it in the preceding section? Though that would require keeping a "hypocrisy" angle in the section header ...

"Obfuscation of the term"? Well, that does fit the "definition" header ... and defines this subsection within it. Good? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this presents Falk's view as as a fact when it is only an opinion. I am not sure why you object to including "Claims of", "Allegations of", or "View on" in the titles. Alternatively I still think we could just state "Noam Chomsky" or "Richard Falk" Just like we state Nicaragua or Guatemala. The exact title is not terrible important. It is probably very difficult to express the contents exactly and briefly at the same. What is important is that it is neutral and does not take sides.Ultramarine (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also important that titles are useful and clear. Seeing "Richard Falk" in the table of contents is anything but useful and clear: What is that section about? Contrast with seeing "Nicaragua" in the table of contents: It is clear what the section is about, and useful to anyone looking for specific info.

Page Break, Pt II

"Claims of State terrorism and propaganda" is just poor English. It is unclear, to the point of being confusing, and therefore not as useful as it might have been.

I'd rather see the current: Though its effect may be questionable, no reasonable man could deny the existence of the propaganda in question. Propaganda is not merely a matter of opinion. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly dispute Falk's view regarding propaganda as he presents it and it is not a fact. My proposal is "Claims/Allegations of U.S. propaganda about state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you dispute it. What matters is if you can come up with another source that disputes it. Until you do, your opinions will remain off this page, restricted to your own brain and your own home.

Obviously, you must be reminded: Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that reasonable man can object. Extraordinary claims such as propaganda require extraordinary sources.Ultramarine (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You yourself have repeatedly reminded us, here, that it is irrelevant whether "reasonable men" can object. Consequently, we are now using your own standards of inclusion as the measure by which we edit this article. Thus, what matters now is only whether you have a source to back up your proposed edits. Since extraordinarily reliable sources have been provided for this content it is now clear that, unless you have equally reliable, contrasting sources to counter them with then this argument has now drawn to a close. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An newspaper interview is certainly not enough to prove as a fact that "mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." His claim that only leftists have been labeled as terrorists is simply false, see Kach.Ultramarine (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: the source is Richard_A._Falk, quoted from an official interview dealing with the precise subject as outlined in the article introduction and title. Your opinion about his validity or reliability as a source is as irrelevant as your opinion about the ideas he expresses. You are clearly engaging in original research, here, and so your these reservations are simply irrelevant. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not an opinion but a fact the Kach has been classified as a terrorist group by the US.[14]Ultramarine (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are clearly misreading his statements. He does not say "leftists in general", but instead "leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries". That's quite a far cry from the interpretation you are attempting to force upon him. Moreover, Kach is not a state actor; it is a non-state actor, and it is clear from Falk's statement that he is distinguishing between the use of terrorism by state proxies and actors as opposed to the use of terrorism by "revolutionaries", "dispossessed", groups fighting for "self-determination", or however you want to put it.

In other words: you are introducing a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with the posted source. Moreover, the edits you have posted to that section are clearly off-topic. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk alleges: "The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" Exclusively is false since also right wing terrorists like Kach have been designated as such.Ultramarine (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaking the context of the quotation. "The propagandists....conceal [the state's] reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries...." This is a minor exaggeration at worst; the interview, however, is focusing upon state and non-state actors in Central America. Kach is clearly not from Central America. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a false statement. Thus the title should mention allegations or claims.Ultramarine (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the article. It's obviously not a false statement, and your protests are just as obviously misplaced. Further, i will point out that the statement is not talking about what the official government position is, but rather what the propagandized version is. Thus, the official understanding of Kach is really irrelevant; almost nobody who regularly reads mainstream media in the U.S. has heard of Kach, whereas groups like the Sandinistas, Castro's Cuba, FARC, and many others are quite familiar. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are doing OR research. Reader of mainstream media certainly hear about terrorists such as Neo-Nazi groups, right-wing paramilitary groups in Latin America, Islamic fundamentalists, etc.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is you who are making the argument from original research -- not i. All i've done is point out that his argument is clear, intelligible, and obviously not at all what you are pretending it is. Now you are trying to justify your proposed changes based on claims you yourself are making about what is and is not the case with the general public. Meanwhile, the quotation -- coming from an extraordinarily reliable source -- stands unaltered while you continue to call for its removal because....you don't like it. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who started claiming that mainstream media do not mention right wing terrorists. Obviously false as shown. Falk makes no mention of your claimed distinction between official position and propagandized version.Ultramarine (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I simply explained the context of the quotation and why it's plausible. Since then, you have badly misinterpreted that statement some three different times, each in a different way, apparently in some sort of hope that you'll trip me up and you'll be able to once again jump-start the disagreement. I will reiterate: the quotation makes perfect sense, it is quite intelligible, and your claims to the contrary amount to original research undertaken in an attempt to delete material so that you can introduce POV skew to the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk's claim is simply false, as shown. He makes no mention of any distinction between "official position" and "propagandized version". Thus the proper title must include "Allegations"Ultramarine (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for "Falk's claim is simply false"? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[15] shows that the claim ""The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" is false. Not exclusively leftists.Ultramarine (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the claim of "Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" For example the Khmer Rogue killed more people.[16][17]Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in either source given, sorry. I fear you are committing a {{syn}} violation. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can also quote Rummel's Death by Government which do include the bombings as a crime but in the grand total still ranks the US not in the top ten killers of the last century.Ultramarine (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You may dispute his views on the "propagandists of the modern state", but hardly their existence, right?

Anyway, the claim seems to be not of propaganda about state terrorism, but rather propaganda concealing state terrorism. Neither does the claim appear to restrict itself to US propaganda. But "Claims of propaganda concealing state terrorism" just sounds awful ... :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"the U.S. and other first-world states, as well as mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." Just a view. "The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries." Simply false, many right-wing groups are also listed as terrorists. ""The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" Again simply false, even accepting that they were state terrorism, for example Stalin killed many more only counting the Great Terror.Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If no further objections I will change to "Claims regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism". As seen many of his statements are disputable claims. The other section to "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict"Ultramarine (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see someone support these changes before you make them. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The current text are POV. WP must follow policy. If no objections with explanations, I will change them.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The current titles are not POV. I, personally, consider them rather superfluous -- but then, they weren't added for me. They were added at the urging of Ultramarine, MONGO, TDC, et al, some many months back. I find it interesting that he now shows up on the page and demands that they be removed. Whatever. Were it not for the fact that i am sure Ultramarine will pop back in here 6 months from now and demand the content's removal based on "irrelevance" then i would have no problem with removing some of these rather superfluous titles and consolidating the heading under something more concise. Unfortunately, i've watched how he works and it has become clear that no accommodation short of deleting the page will satisfy him.

Regardless, i will be happy to add more material that will justify the "Hypocrisy...." heading. I require, however, a bit of time -- two weeks or so -- before i can manage it. I am quite busy at the moment with three different projects, and the research this will require is going to set me back a few afternoons. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not added or advocated these titles. If you add more material, then we will discuss that material then. We are now discussing the current material.Ultramarine (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful about making such statements, Ultramarine. While your denial may not be outright false, it can be rather easily proven inaccurate. As for the addition of new material i will, of course, provide a sandbox that will allow discussion before inclusion. My point, however, is that this section in particular is easily expanded and so properly titled. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you evidence for you claims, cite them. Hypothetical material that may or may not appear sometime in the future are irrelevant for current discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggested replacements also do not follow policy. "Claims regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism" fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV, for reasons I have already given; I may add Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim to the list, as this use is not among those "acceptable", though of course that is a guideline, not a policy.

And I think "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" is also POV, as it leaves out an important part of the likening, namely namely the "military operations" parts. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky does not compare it to military operations in LIC, just to LIC without a qualifer. We can use "Allegations" instead of "Claims". Allegations seems to be acceptable according to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim."Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them.".Ultramarine (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In that quote Chomsky actually compares terrorism (without a qualifier) to LIC; adding a qualifier to one, you should also add a corresponding qualifier to the other. Also, the Chomsky quote is not all there is in this section: We also have a quote from the manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict. Remember? :)

"Allegations regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism"? Fine in the text, but still not good in the header, if we go by the guidelines, according to which that word "should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear". In the section header, particularly in the table of contents, this identity is not clear. Oh, and you still haven't addressed how the restrictions to "U.S." propaganda and propaganda "about" state terrorism are not in the source. If anything the section is on "Propaganda and U.S. state terrorism". Of course, that header would be hopelessly POV. It's just not easy!  :-( — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Chomsky material since it does not include "state", then that is fine with me. Regardless, Chomsky does not make a comparison with military operations in LIC, so claiming this is factually incorrect. We could state "Allegations regarding Western propaganda by Richard Falk".Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chomsky material does not use the word "state" (nor the words "military operations"), but it is still on that topic. There may be other reasons to exclude it, but as off-topic? Won't fly.

Since my proposed header does not mention Chomsky at all, it makes no claim on Chomsky, and so cannot be factually incorrect.

I'd prefer "Richard Falk on state terrorism and Western propaganda", if we have to include his name. I note that you have added material to this section by people other than Richard Falk. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison to military operations in LIC, so it is factually incorrect to state this. Falk's view is still not a fact, just a view. Propaganda is a negative term that implies untruth. Which is not proven. How about "Allegations by Richard Falk on state terrorism and Western propaganda"Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not in Chomsky, no, but we need not restrict ourself to Chomsky. Propaganda is negatively charged, yes, but it does not imply untruth. Indeed, from Propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful" — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source making a comparison to military operations in LIC. FFalk alleges that " mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." A very POV extraordinary statement and not a fact. Would require very extraordinary sources to justify as a fact such a gigantic conspiracy among the media.Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk makes no claims of "conspiracy". That is your own interpolation and it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Further, Falk himself qualifies as an "extraordinary source"; thus, your argument is rendered moot on both counts.

As usual, i might add. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All mainstream media "obfuscating" in order to only show a first-world view is an extraordinary claim. An interview in the Nation is not an extraordinary source. Further, such claims would require multiple sources to show that this view is accepted as a fact.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia that says extraordinary statements require multiple source, only that they require extraordinarily reliable sources. Interview or not, Richard_A._Falk certainly qualifies as that.

The stuff about "mainstream obfuscating" is utterly unintelligible. At any rate, the long and the short of this is that you do not have consensus for your proposed edits and changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is unintelligible, blame Falk. An interview in a newspaper is not evidence enough to show as fact that "mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version".Ultramarine (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "consensus version". I said that you do not have consensus for your proposed changes -- in other words, there are a lot of people who consider your changes to be nothing more than the introduction of ungrammatical, inaccurate, weasel-word-laden, POV language that does not conform to basic, clearly outlined Wikipedia prose styling.

As for the rest: why on earth would i blame Falk for the prose you post to this discussion page? What on earth are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must follow policy and is not a democracy, see WP:NOT. It is not an ongoing survey of current article editors. Besides, no straw poll have been made so current opinion is unknown. If was you who claimed that mainstream obfuscating is "utterly unintelligible". Merely pointing out that this is Falk's words.Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere have i appealed to any survey of the editors here. Instead, i have simply pointed out that the vast majority of editors here have expended a great deal of time and energy explaining to you why your proposed edits do not conform to Wikipedia policy and clearly fail to provide: neutral point of view; reliable sourcing; relevance to the article; and valid context. Where in that do you derive some sort of "democratic appeal"? If ten different editors explain to you that you are in violation of a guideline and then patiently use weeks of effort to show you exactly how then there is clearly no "appeal to democracy" being made. It is, clearly, an appeal to consensually established wikipedia values.

And yet it gets stranger. On the one hand, you say "Wikipedia is not a Democracy". In the very next sentence you say that a straw poll must be taken to guage the will of the editors here -- except that it has now been clear for more than a month that there are no regular editors here who agree with any of your proposed edits -- and of those who have shown up recently, only one or two who admit to even a slight inclination to accept a very small fraction of your suggestions. Why, in this case, should a straw poll be taken? Stone put to sky (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that your claims of current consensus are unverifiable. I am not advocating straw polls and policy states that they are not relevant for dispute resolution. Discussion is the way to go.Ultramarine (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That is utter nonsense. You clearly say that, since a straw poll hasn't been taken, we cannot know what anyone here really thinks about the situation. That is an appeal to the majority opinion -- i.e: democracy -- and as clearly in conflict with the statement that came before it as anything possibly could be. Moreover, if my claims about current consensus are so unverifiable then please -- go up and down this page and count the number of long-time editors who have repeatedly objected to your arguments and edits. At my last count there were seven in these last two weeks alone, every one of which made repeated and lengthy rebuttals to your abuse of wikipedia guidelines, each one using similar or identical arguments to the others. That's a pretty clear consensus to me. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People have disagreed and agreed on different issues. What they think on this issue us unknown. Regardless, policy states that the way resolve disputed is by discussion. Which I am doing.Ultramarine (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been near-unanimous agreement that your proposed changes are either unintelligible, irrelevant to the page content, based upon specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines and policy, or obvious attempts to skew the point of view of the page. In each of these instances policy is clearly against you. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is false. Regardless, disputes are resolved by discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obviously not false. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT:"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting."Ultramarine (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I appreciate the gesture. I hope this means that you will now give up these futile arguments of yours. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss to resolve the issues.Ultramarine (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you are not discussing, Ultramarine. You are simply deleting or introducing material that pleases you and then, after the fact, justifying your actions by reiterating tired arguments that have been repeatedly rejected, over and over again, by nearly all the editors working here. You are ignoring all responses and entreaties without any regard for Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is you -- not we, and not the article -- who is in violation of the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added much material. Rejected by all editors is simply false.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re LIC, we seem to be going in circles. Time for a third opinion. Anyone?

Re Falk, since his claim is not repeated in the proposed header, it does not present his claim as fact. What it does present as a fact is that Falk has said something about state terrorism and Western propaganda. I don't think that is an extraordinary claim. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re LIC, are you arguing that there is a source making such a comparison? If not, I fail to see the problem. Wikipedia must be accurate. Re Falk, the header sets the tone. It implies that Falk's claims are accurate, when some are false, and some dubious. It also assumes as a fact that there is something negative about Western statements about terrorism. Exactly what is problems with "allegations"? Ultramarine (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent:)

Re LIC, I don't think we're getting anywhere without a third opinion.

Re Falk: Merely stating that Falk speaks on a subject does not imply his claims are accurate. In fact, I have a hard time imagining what would be a more neutral way of stating it. Nor does the proposed heading imply anything concerning "statements about terrorism". But still, I'm not convinced naming Falk in the heading is correct: You have yourself added to that section material from other sources. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To say -- as Ultramarine does -- that "There is no comparison to military operations in LIC, so it is factually incorrect to state this" is just utterly false. It's quite analogous saying "There is no comparison between Electrons and Neutrons in the Nucleus of an Atom, so it is factually incorrect to state this." So let's get real: "Low Intensity Conflict" is a specialized term used by the United States Military to describe a certain strategic environment in which military operations will be undertaken. So on this point Ultramarine's "protestations" are simply ridiculous. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the definition in the manual. "Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments." So not necessarily military operations.Ultramarine (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And where, exactly, did that definition come from, hmmm??? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The manual on this itself.Ultramarine (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Break, Pt III

Ah. I see. So -- please correct me if i'm wrong, here -- you are arguing that:

A) The U.S. Army has defined, in its manual, the phrase "Low Intensity Conflict" as a specialized term it uses to define strategic and tactical environments.

--and--

B) That "Low Intensity Conflict" -- as a specialized term defined by the United States Army -- does not possess an implied relationship to "Military Operations".

Am i correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Let me ask it again:

The U.S. Army has defined, in its manual, the phrase "Low Intensity Conflict" as a specialized term it uses to define strategic and tactical environments.

-- and --

You are arguing that "Low Intensity Conflict" -- as a specialized term defined by the United States Army -- does not possess an implied relationship to "Military Operations".

Is that correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a yes and no question since it contains multiple different claims which I partially agree with, partially disagree with. Again, per the manual, LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then -- which claims do you agree with:

A) The part that says this is a specialized term invented and used by the U.S. military to describe a specific tactical and strategic environment --

-- or --

B) That a specialized term invented and used by the U.S. military does not imply "Military Operations". Stone put to sky (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question B is wrongly worded. Not simply military operations or not. Again, per the manual, LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. From the manual:

This chapter outlines the role of military operations in low intensity conflict (LIC). It describes the environment of LIC and identifies imperatives which the military planner must consider.

End of story. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Military operations can be part of LIC. But again, not necessarily. Definiton from manual: ""Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments." and "The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. "[18]Ultramarine (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now you are changing your argument. Where before you claimed that "There is no comparison to military operations in LIC", now you are admitting that there are military operations included in the LIC, just not exclusively. Which is entirely consistent with the Chomsky quote. Which means, of course, that your objections are utterly irrelevant. Which of course means that this argument is now, officially, ended -- and that your material should be deleted, since there is no reason whatsoever for its inclusion. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The dispute was originally about whether ""State Terrorism likened to Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict" was a good title. Chomsky does not make such a comparisons, he makes a comparison to LIC without qualifier. Therefore this proposed title is incorrect and "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" is better.Ultramarine (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Colombia and Israel?

In addition to Columbia, which has lots of good information about State terrorism being supported by the US (see Chavez's allegations), I'm wondering why we don't have a section on the State of Israel's State terrorism? Its has to be one of the biggest perpetrators of State terrorism besides the United States (and Appartied South Africa), and certainly its main supporter, of course, is the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered the same since I got here, and I have a few thoughts.

• A section on Israel would break with the established pattern: The other sections seem named after the targets (Japan and Iran, obviously).
• Even the existing section on Lebanon does not mention Israel. Surprised me! (The only section that even mentions Israel is that on El Salvador!)
• A section on Palestine would seem obvious to me: I've noticed no shortage of accusations, at least.

I'm no writer, so I won't attempt to remedy this, but I'll assist as I can if anyone does. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think our content should be driven by what is available from quality sources. So when I have some time this week I will do a little research to see what I find. If we find good material then we can start to put it together for a section.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No original research please. Sources must make allegations of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, just like the rest of this article does. But, not everything need say that, as we would need relevant background information that explains more of the incidents described by at least some reliable sources as examples of the topic of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG in many places. Allegations against the US must be allegations of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no violations here given my, and other editors, understanding of these policies.

Ok, so I took a quick look and it was as I expected, thousands of sources condemning Israel for State Terrorism. Of course, many implicate the US, since the US is the main supporter of that State. Here are just a few we can look at for starters. Since there is so much material out there, we should only pick the best sources, after a more exhaustive search, in particular, in academic journals. Also, we really should have an article on the topic of State Terrorism and Israel, if we don't already since there is an almost endless supply of volumes of information making just such a charge: Israel's Sacred Terrorism excerpted from the book The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/IsraelSacredTerror_Herman.html

Published on Monday, April 1, 2002 by Tikkun Magazine Israel's State Terrorism by Lev Grinberg

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0401-04.htm Israel's State-Sponsored Terrorism

By Marwan Bishara, The Nation. Posted July 13, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/story/38937/

http://www.socialism.com/currents/syriabombing.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/04/turkey.israel http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-06-2006/82622-israelterror-0 http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3506409,00.html http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=326850 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2676.shtml http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38233 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1948634.stm Giovanni33 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"thousands of sources condemning Israel for State Terrorism. Of course, many implicate the US, since the US is the main supporter of that State." Unless they accuse the US of Israel terrorism, such claims violate WP:SYN. Some of your sources are dubious online far left writings. Remember, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. All it has to do is say the US shares responsiblity or is deeply implicated in the state terrorism of Israel. And, then not every source. We just need a few sources to anchor this claim and other sources and elaborate in more dept giving specific background info, etc. This is in line with the rest of the article. Your claims of SYN? "That dog don't hunt," to borrow an expression.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG. WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Most of the articles violate this. The sources do not accuse the US of anything or not of terrorism or state terrorism. All such material should be removed. Otherwise we could for example add this view[19] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Are you arguing that? Ultramarine (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. Your assertions to the contrary are rooted in a fallacious argument. The main reason is that no originating claims are made through synthesis. Each claim is supported by its own valid source. Putting them together not for the purpose of creating a new claim but for the purpose of providing more background information about the same claim already contained in a good source, is NOT SYN in any manner. The key to see this is that there are not new, original claims being manufactured by any editors herew, which would be OR. So far you have failed to show this, and your repeating the same old refuted arguments shown to be wrong does not change that.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the same argument could be applied to abortion material as per above. Again, if "If the sources cited do not explicitly

reach the same conclusion", then not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, only if you have multiple, reliable sources that anchors the main claim: that abortion is state terrorism. Do you have that? If you did, then you could add other background info about the details of the issue in question from soures that do not make the claim. This is a rather elementary proposition to grasp. I really don't think its too subtle. The criterion is: we we make up any new claims, or not? If we do, then its our own, i.e. original research, or its variation, SYN. This article does not do that. So question: do you have multiple reliable sources that call abortion state terrorism? The idea is absurd--who is the voluntary abortion terrorizing? Other fetuses? hehe So, I don't think you have any such sources. This means your analogy fails.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with at length above. The article you are quoting does not talk about "state terrorism" at all. Further, it is clearly a metaphorical usage of the term "terrorism" -- not literal; further, it does not ascribe the "terror" in question to any agents beyond "the media"; further, it clearly does not fall under any generally understood meaning of "state terror"; further, the source it comes from is non-notable (i.e. -- not official doctrine, personal opinion, etc); further, the quotations provided are woefully incomplete and do not convey a precise meaning.

Etc. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church official is very harsh and talks about "slaughterhouses". So he means terrorism. There is no "generally understood meaning of "state terror"". The person in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you have been repeatedly warned about making these clearly false claims about there being "no generally understood meaning of state terrorism". The RedPenOfDoom, just above, forced you only today to retreat from this absurd claim and concede that it does not represent good faith editing.

Now, it is utterly irrelevant whether or not the church official is harsh. He is not "the person in charge of Catholic doctrine", and the statement was not made as part of official Church policy. It was not made in a legal or analytical context, nor was it used in a literal sense. So please, simply give up these utterly farcical assertions. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for a "generally understood meaning of state terrorism", then state it. A person among those in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are now simply ignoring what i have already pointed out to you: we went over this earlier today. You have already received your response. You have already been challenged on this by two or three editors. You have already acknowledged that this line of argument is overt bad faith on your part. Most importantly: we have already been around this just today. Thus, i will not reiterate what is so clearly said above. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not given a source showing evidence for a "generally understood meaning of state terrorism" so the issue was not resolved. You pointed to many different sources having very different definitions. Which was evidence against your position.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a red-herring fallacy. If you are unclear about the the term means, then you can go look it up in the dictionary. I know the the term means, and when others use it, I can report it here since its on topic to this article. If you have a source that says that so and so are using it in an unconventional and thus questionable manner, then that would be fine. But you have the burden of making that claim, not me or the many valid sources I provided above which assert the claim. That is what attribution is all about.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point to the State terrorism article and the sourced material there. Many different definition, no agreed on meaning.Ultramarine (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You can pool sources from there, however you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source, Wikipedia fails itself as a source. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations states that "The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter"." Proposed definitions include:

1. League of Nations Convention (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).Ultramarine (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated to you by Stone yesterday, no there is not one, single, internationally agreed upon legal definition. Still, one hellufa long way from "anyone can call anything state terrorism." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of an agreed upon legal definition for a court of law is a red-herring and not relevant to the issue here. The conceptual framework is clear nonetheless, hence this article. If there is someone using it in a very non-standard way, then we can provide sources that say so. But this is no way prevents us from reporting on what sources do say about US sponsored state terrorism. Hence, this is a red-herring fallacy on the part of Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

" If there is someone using it in a very non-standard way, then we can provide sources that say so." Which sources? Ultramarine (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reliable source. Do you have any for any specific usages of state terrorism that is currently being used in the article? If so lets see them. Otherwise, I don't see you have any valid point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets take the abortion case. Terrorism or not? Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get it yet. My personal opinion is not relevant. Its not for us to make the case. That would be OR. The question is: do you have multiple and reliable sources that say that abortion state terrorism by the US govt? Yes or not? If you do, then you could add other sources that talk about the specifics and background info on abortion.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not have multiple sources accusing the US for terrorism due to Nicaragua vs US case. Only one.Ultramarine (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Its not up for us to decide "terrorism or not". If you want, feel free to draft a proposed segment in your sandbox and let us know when you are ready for comments. I am thinkin you will have a hard time finding reliable sources to link abortion as state terrorism to the US, but if you have em, go at it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Using the rest of the article as a model, one is enough. I can then add any source criticizing abortion even if they do not mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even your one, is not reliable. But, also, the point you raised as only having one source actually has many other sources, which are easy to find. For example: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.htmlGiovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Online only source is hardly reliable. A person among those in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A better source, and I quote, "the war against Nicaragua, in which the U.S. funded, armed, and trained the Contras in a war "aiming to destroy," writes author William Blum, "the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing" ­ by any definition, a campaign of terror."http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html So as you can see there are easily multiple sources that make the same claim. How about your claim? Where are your multiple sources? We can then look at reliability afterwards, but you havn't even met the basic threshold. As far as comparing Chomsky, an internationally known academic, and pioneer on this subject matter, to an some relatively unknown religious writers personal opinion, is a bit silly in the extreme. There is no comparison.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of terrorism in your quote. And I was talking about the court case.Ultramarine (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Read again. It talks about a Terror campaing, supported by the US. I made it bold for you.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. The title, not your quote. Chomsky has no education or degree in political science or history. Here is another source alleging abortion is terrorism.[20]Ultramarine (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of State terrorism of any kind supported by the US govt., in your source. Here is yet another source, and I quote, "Giving the U.S. the benefit of the doubt, its war against Nicaragua was an act of international terrorism, though the case could be made that it amounted to the more heinous crime of aggression, "the supreme international crime," as defined at Nuremberg."http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11162 Also, an important point is that the source making the claim has to be notable enough that their claim is repeated in the press and cited in published papers on the subject. This is teh case with Chomsky. For exmaple:http://www.democracynow.org/2000/5/22/noam_chomsky_speech_on_state_terrorGiovanni33 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that only sources speaking of "state terrorism" are allowed? Not "terrorism"? That would certainly even more reduce the number of correct sources in this article. Chomsky does not mention "state terrorism" in this article, for example. The Catholic claim have been cited by many mainstream sources.23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs)

Of course this article is about terrorism perpetrated by the State. All the incidents of this, in this article, involve the US, which is accused of it. Where in the press is the claim by this religious person repeated? Is it the official policy of the Catholic Church? But this is all moot if its not talking about State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google search gives 11,000 hits.[21] Chomsky and the other persons expressing their views in this article are not expressing any official policy.Ultramarine (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal blogs don't count and I don't see a single mention of State terrorism, anywhere, to ground your basic claim. As such it belongs, if anywhere, in an article on Abortion. Nothing to do with State Terrorism. Chomsky is very notable, so the equivalent would be an official Church policy, or if the Pope said it.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Chomsky does not state "state terrorism" anywhere in this article. Only "terrorism". So should his statements be removed? Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not speak the truth. As with many times before, you claim that a source doesn't say something it repeatedly says over and over. Either you are not bothering to read and make up stuff, or you just make up stuff. Both are equally bad. I counted several times where Chomsky makes exactly that claim. Here is only one quote from the article. Chomsky says: "the US is very much in favor of state terrorism. In fact, Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years."Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in several of the others, like the Nicaragua one. Should it be removed? Or the Tom Regan material which does not mention "state terrorism"?Ultramarine (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one doesn't? No they should not be removed provided they are on the same topic about the claim which is sourced. I provided many sources so the claim is valid, not OR, not SYN. On the other hand your sources fail to show even one instance of calling abortion state terrorism supported by the US. Case closed.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani television one, fore example. Not mention of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Link? And is it used to make a claim where no other source has already established the claim in question? I highly doubt it.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[22] It is in the Nicaragua vs. US section. There is no policy stating that you can violate WP:SYN and add any source making criticisms just because another source mentions "state terrorism". If so, quote it.Ultramarine (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will further add that the Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon sections have no mention of "state terrorism" at all.Ultramarine (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent). I won't repeat myself about SYN and OR, so your claiming something that has been refuted and explained already does not make it valid. If you keep saying 1+1=3, and we already explained that it equals 2, saying it equals 3 later doesn't make it any less incorrect. About that article, I read it and you are again wrong. It clearly claims the US engaged in terror, that is the STATE engaged in terror. Get that? The US GOVT is accused of international terrorism, in clear terms. I quote: "it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to attack undefended civilian targets that were called “soft targets.” And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That’s even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to the International Court of Justice—World Court-- presented a case, which in this case wasn’t very difficult because it was obvious who the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called “unlawful use of force”--which is the judicial way of saying “international terrorism”--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim."Giovanni33 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does not mention "state terrorism", so double standard to exclude the abortion claims for the same reason. The Court in the Nicaragua case found the US not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras, so how can there be terrorism? "Unlawful use of force is" not the same as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No but state terrorism is unlawful use of force, and that is what Chomsky and others are calling it, so we can report it. Your person view that it isn't does not count. That would in fact be OR. As you know there is no legal definition hence their use of the term as Chomsky explains. And, yes, he is talking about US State Terrorism. He clearly is talking about US actions and calls it international terrorism. Last time I checked the US was a State. Don't play word games. That is like a source saying a person was murdered, and you objecting because it doesn't say he was "killed." Distinction without a difference, and semantics. Moreover, we have a lot of other sources, as I already proved, which do use that exact phrase, to describe the same thing. So any further claims of SYN or OR, are absurd and groundless, in the face of the facts. If you continue making that claim about this, it will be seem as bad faith.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard please. If we can include the Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon material which have no mention of "state terrorism", then abortion material should also be allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You just dont understand what the standard is.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the purpose of this section, I will work on adding material about Columbia and Israel in a sand box and then add it to this article with consensus. There are lots of sources that implicate the US as sponsoring these two countrie's State terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the material must include sources directly accusing the US of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget also indirect. I agree there has to be multiple and reliable sources implicating the US of state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not violate WP:SYN. ["Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Otherwise we could for example add this view[23] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Is that your position?Ultramarine (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia"

"Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of U.S. foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — as a form of terrorism" The Chomsky does not state that in the the given source. He may criticize the support, but he does not claim that it was terrorism for most of these nations. Nicaragua being the exception. As such the others should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove! If you find something that is not supported by the sources given, tag with {{failed verification}}! It'll give others a fair chance to find sources supporting this. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV intro, first discussion

Obviously POV. Only arguments from one side. No mentioning of much greater deaths caused by others states, for example.Ultramarine (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Agreed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm find with balancing material, however, your example is not logical, and is off topic. Unless, say, the US has "tu quoque" as its official response to these charges, but I doubt that.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it off topic? Many of critics claims that the US is the worst state.Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Already explained, its a logical fallacy. Also, I just checked the article and no where is the claim made the the US is the worse state. Certainly its a chief perpetrator, a leader of the pack, but where does it say the US is the worst state?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayer in the intro or Falk "the graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism". Here is one response to this and charges against the US regarding LIC etc [24]. Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is off topic, as it never mentions state terrorism, to borrow one of your favorite lines. For example, it doesn't even compare other states LIC with the US, but some rather disputed estimates of all total "political deaths," without quantifying that, comparing apples to oranges. And regardless, its a logical fallacy, too. However, if you have a specific counter claim to that of Faulks regarding Hiroshima not being the number one exhibit of state terrorism, that would be welcome, and could be included.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See below.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you agree that articles must mention terrorism or state terrorism? Or is there a double standard? Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To create a section, the main claims, yes, must be anorchored in those exact terms, and then further information can be added which do not make that specific claim but elaborate and exapand on information based on the first main claim tied the action to state terrorism implicating the US. This has always been my rather consistent stance.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No such policy. A double standard to claim that for the intro but not other material.Ultramarine (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro's do not follow the same rules of the rest of the article, I am sure you are aware of this, they do not even need to be sourced. The intro's job is simply to present a basic representation of the entire article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to policy please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, its not my job to hunt things down for you. Consult someone if you do not believe me. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is those who make the claim who must proved the source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a rule for article content, not Wikipedia manual of style. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He's right, Ultramarine. It's up to you to know the rules here. It's not up to us to go find them and show them to you.Stone put to sky (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something from Kafka. A person is told that he is accused of breaking a rule but is not told what the rule is. Obviously not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right?! Oh no: He is quite wrong. Appeals to policy must also indicate which policy, at least when questioned, or they are worthless, baseless, useless, and shameless. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:LEAD, which is guideline, not policy. And which has been misrepresented here.

For one thing, the lead should summarize, not the article, but the topic. A slanted article does not justify a slanted lead: "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Also: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." (Emphasis mine.)

For another, the rules are the same for the lead; certainly as regards sources: It "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". And: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." (Emphasis mine.)

{{POV-intro}} should be obvious given the new scope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article leads are generally not sourced. They only become sourced when people can't get their way it seems. A lead is not suppose to present anything, its suppose to explain what you are about to read in a general way. You cannot take sources to very specific items as we have now begun sourcing each sentence in this article, and present them as sources for more general information, it will mis-represent the sources. However I will just stand back as the pigs make a mess, then play in it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So to sum up, any objections against mentioning uch greater deaths caused by others states?Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In a word, YES. Major objections. But you already knew that since these objections have been made clear, and thus your question pretending not to know is rather dishonest.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You were arguing that the sources must mention terrorism or state terrorism. That is a double standard since you do not argue that for other material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not, if the source is stating greater deaths from other states as a justification, or means of dismissal against specific claims of state terrorism. If we are discussing the article countering Chomsky, then no, since it is about Chomsky specifically and not the greater view of state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that sources must mention terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how I can rephrase what I typed. Is the first or second sentence the one you are making the false assumption under? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are claims the US is the worst state. An obvious rebuttal is to point out studies showing far greater deaths to civilians by other states.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a SYN violation, Ultra. You don't get to determine the criteria that experts use for "worse" (even though they don't use that term). Yet when you are making the SYN assumption that qualitatively asseses via a comparison of "State Terrorism on the basis of a numbers game, cited by some other source. Yet, that source does not make the rebuttal--you are using him to make the argument you want to advance--not the source. In fact, its not an obvious rebuttal at all. In anycase its OR, and its on this basis that I strongly object, and state that it can't stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending if they are refuting the presented source regarding the presented topic, or if they are just stating the original sources author is dump, or America is cool. Which is why as someone else pointed out, we are lacking context to say yay or nay. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have objections; it rather depends on context and sources. I really don't like comparing in the first place, but if you can find sources that makes the comparison (and don't synthesise any comparison, or any justification, or anything else for that matter), I'm sure there's a place in this article, and quite possibly in the lead, for it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel's Statistics of Democide is one example.Ultramarine (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A positive note

A good item that has come from all the bickering is the article is quite littered with sources. It seems to be one of the best sourced articles on Wikipedia. Is there any way to cleanup some of the duplicates in the references section? It would be interesting to know how many unique sources exist. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources are dubious one from the far left. Most do not mention terrorism or state terrorism and thus violate WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Though they are not currently, the sources should all be unique: Latter instances of the same reference should just use the reference name. I've been meaning to clean up that for a while, but I keep getting distracted. Meh. I'll get to it eventually. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, I would assist but I not sure how to do this, if you can provide some assistance that would be great. Again, everyone, great work so far. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, it's just making sure the ref elements have an identifying name tag. Search the source for <<ref name="ratner"> for a trivial example of how. Or hey, let me just show you the source (emphasis mine):

In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister [[Dianna Ortiz]], brought a U.S. civil court case<ref name="ratner">{{cite web|url=http://www.humanrightsnow.org/Ratner2%20david%20ratner%20corrections%20final%20numbered.htm|title=Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations|last=Ratner|first=Michael|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted."<ref>http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/1996/guatemala31-96.htm</ref> The complaint initiated a firestorm of controversy because Gen. Gramajo was, at the time of the complaint's submission, attending Harvard University<ref name="ratner" />

Note how the second does not need any content of its own; it implicitly contains the same as the first.

We have some of these, but other references have been just cut-and-pasted, it seems. Really "fun" when the same reference comes four times in a row.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it, you name the references, then just attribute it later by the name you give it. Is there any rules to the naming? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My one concern about attempting such a clean up is that at the rate material gets added and removed from the article, if the full citation (that is used later in the article several times) gets tossed in someones cut, then the actual reference for all of the later material appears to be missing and as such could be a target for people requiring the removal of 'unsourced material.' If the disappearance is not noted and corrected immediately, tracking back through all the multiple edits to find the original refernce could be a nightmare.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rules, beyond the obvious — that they must be useable as (part of) html link fragments, and that the names of two different references must also be different — none of which I'm aware.

TheRedPenOfDoom's concern is a sensible one, but not a show-stopper: The loss of a reference is easily detectable (just try it and check the preview: it shows up as a big red "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ratner" or whatever), so we should be able to catch it pretty quickly; and even if editors go crazy and manage to bury the change under dozens unrelated changes, finding the original is not as difficult as you might think. Just use Newton's method (if even necessary!) to find an early enough presence of the broken reference. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that the system was able to flag that type of error, and so I have no objections if someone wishes to proceed with the cleanup. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

source for 9/11 and several terrorist attacks claim needed

I didn't revert but I think its off topic, unless you have sources that state that these individual terrorist attacks are State terrorism. Currently it has no source. I note the claim is that the US has been a victim of several terrorist attacks. We need sources to support this, and keep in mind this is about State Terrorism, not just any act of terrorism. It has to be by States.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The attack was committed with the help of Afghanistan.Ultramarine (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a source that alleges that, also your claim is not just this one attack but "several attacks." Please provide sources that support these claims of being a victim of State terrorism. Also, note that you say "has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks such as 9/11"---do the source say that there were not only many attacks of state terror but that they were "attacks such as 9/11?" I think 9/11 was pretty unique, as far as occurring in the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you added do not support what is being claimed.Giovanni33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Afghanistan is accused of supporting Al Quada.Ultramarine (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim is several attacks such as 9/11. I read the Bush speech you cited, and I don't see where this claim is made. Can you quote it? Also, it has to be made NPOV, i.e. it doesn't say the Bush/US accused, but states it as a fact. Lastly the intro is not the place to pile on numerous examples--one at most, only to clarify the point--not to argue the case. That is supposed to be for the body of the article. That is why its best to float your proposed changes on talk first before putting it on the main article page. Btw, you already have several reverts, I believe at least 3.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is example of a one terrorist attack. I do no state that they were all equal. I will add many more to the body.Ultramarine (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder."Ultramarine (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But you claim, "such as 9/11" implying that you are referring to similar or like-attacks. This is misleading and is without a source. The intro should not be filled with these examples of allegations, esp. not in the form of a fact, as it violates NPOV. Again, why not first propose what you want to add here and let editors comment on it first?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks such as 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, or the Pan Am Flight 103 with allegedly the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction allegedly with the assistance of East Germany." I can change to "for example" instead of "such as" if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at it that I hope will make both sides happy: one example each. I agree the intro is best kept concise. Leave the arguments about particulars for the body.71.204.160.68 (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You selectively deleted the arguments from one side and did not move them to the body. Please explain. Also why did you delete opposing views form the atomic boms section?Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there was no "selective editing" taking place. The sources and statements provided didn't even allege -- much less establish -- the involvement of the Afghan state. And it is quite clear why he deleted the portion under the "Atomic Bombs" section. The rationale has already been explained to you repeatedly: whether or not there were "lives saved" on the American side is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the bombs constituted an example of State Terrorism. It may have been that those lives could have been saved some other way, without the use of the bombs. It may have been that the bombs could have been used on military targets -- rather than defenseless civilians -- and so would not have been considered an act of state terrorism. Neither of those scenarios involve the purposeful murder of millions of defenseless civilians for the sake of a political point scored against the Soviet Union -- and in each case, american lives would have been "saved" just as well.

So once again: it is irrelevant whether or not the bombs are considered to have "saved american lives". The only relevant issue is whether or not the use of the bombs constituted an act of State Terror, and your additions to the section do not speak to that point. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The section discusses the motive for the bombing. "the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Then also the mainstream opinion regarding this should be presented. That it was to save American and Japanese lives.Ultramarine (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The section discusses the ideas of people who consider it an act of state terrorism. In that light, the motive is only relevant insofar as those experts address it. What you are suggesting is clearly the introduction of your own invented response to those ideas; that is original research and outside the scope of Wikipedia policy. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles must respect NPOV. If presenting negative arguments for why the bombs was dropped, then we must also present the mainstream postive one. I invented nothing, citing many scholars.Ultramarine (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should only those who are attacking the US be allowed to have a view? Very strange and against WP:NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing or ignoring Stone's point: this is not a place for a debate about the pro's and con's of dropping the bomb. That is a much wider scope and we already have an article that explores these debates. It does not logically follow, per NPOV, that the views of those who consider it state terrorism are aired, then so much any view that considers the bombings as justified be equally aired. They can be to the extend that they stay on topic, i.e. the assertions and reasoning that such bombings constituted acts of state terrorism. But, beyond that, they are off topic, and an artificial and skewed way to achieve this utopian NPOV. Remember, this article should only deal with charges of State terrorism and matter directly related to it. Repeating the argument that the bomb saved lives (from bad sources, I might add), is off topic, and a non-sequitur in this context, and opens up the debate for the counter arguments that Stone raised regarding the point of saved lives (as I say its a debate). But its a debate that is beyond the scope of that section. Lastly, you have been opposed by many editors so there is the question of consensus that you keep ignoring by reposting that section--which you did directly to the article instead of taking it to talk first. That is another problem that you persist in repeating, unfortunately.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Repeating the argument that the bomb saved lives (from bad sources, I might add)" Incorrect, I listed multiple scholarly sources. The article now gives undue weight to certain motives for the bombing. "the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Again, NPOV means that also the mainstream opinion regarding this should be presented. Intending to save both military and civilian lives is hardly terrorism. So obviously relevant for claims of terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are writing your own argument for why the state terrorism was justified, not a scholarly sources argument, since they are not writing about state terrorism. I will view some Hiroshima sources, I am sure the authors covered both sides of the debate. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree we should remove sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals to arguments, should be just that, not random information that we as editors believe proves something, or refutes something. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unclear. You agree we should remove sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Or can we include them?Ultramarine (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My statement wasn't in relation to either. I will paste below what I am working on for the Hiroshima section, both sources are from books discussing the notion of state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In Terrorism and Collective Responsibility by Burleigh Taylor Wilkins, Wilkins states that "any definition which allowed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to count as instances of terrorism would be too broad." He goes on to explain "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."

In Unspeak by Steven Poole, Poole argues it does not matter if "Hiroshima was justified because it ended the way sooner, saving countless American and Japanese lives, etc. The truth or otherwise of such a claim is not relevant to the fact that in means and intention, it was an act of terrorism."

Comments? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is good. Thanks for finding that, N4GMiraflores (any chance your from Peru?). I have no objections to that material as it is on topic, unlike Ultramarine's info. Also you've made the point clearly and I think everyone understands.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the objection to presenting the mainstream view among scholars that the bombings was intended to and saved lives? Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.[25][26][27][28][29]Ultramarine (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are refuting the argument of state terrorism, then there is none. As you see, simply stating something was done to save lives, does not mean it was not state terrorism (second paragraph above). I would prefer the article contain the point for state terrorism as a classification, and the refutation as provided by scholars for why it was not terrorism. What I would like to avoid is the following: "Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism when it trained exiles to invade its land", the response section then containing "The US says Cuba sucks" which is not a refutation of the state terrorism charge. The first paragraph specifically examines the concept of Hiroshima as terrorism and refutes it. As for your sources I have not looked at them, however when presenting, try to present them in context of the state terrorism theme. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that sources not mentioning state terrorism and terrorism should be excluded from this article. Right? Your analogy is flawed, a fair one would be "The US says that is trained freedom fighters."Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you do not like the analogy, I tried to keep it simply, however in both cases there is a statement without the theme being present, making it original research. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR, the sources given support the view. You want to exclude them for not explicitly mentioning terrorism, right?Ultramarine (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what view you are saying they support. The argument presented is the events constitute state terrorism. Can you please explain to me I guess what your sources are saying about Hiroshima being an instance of state terrorism? As presented above in paragraph 2, Steven Poole argues that even if the instance saved lives, it does not remove it from being state terrorism. The response section should contain a response to the charge, what response are your sources giving? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One response is that this is similar to your analogy. The US would say they support Freedom Fighters, not terrorists. Here similarly, the mainstream view is that the bombings was intended to and saved lives. Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to exclude these sources for not including the word "terrorism" and "state terrorism", then say that.Ultramarine (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying it saved lives is not a counter for if it is, or is not, terrorism. Do you consider the Beirut bombing to be terrorism? The goal of the bombers were to remove the US military presence and not engage in a drawn out battle that could tear apart the government and cause mass casualties ... stating that, is not an argument for why it is not terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a double standard. Most of the material used for criticizing the US have no mention of "terrorism" or "state terrorism" at all. But now you are arguing that when using supporting material, then the material must include this. Double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to attempt to put words in my mouth. The idea is context. I would think you would want to present the best argument possible for why these instances are not terrorism, instead you simply want to say, "America had a good reason for being terrorists." This line of reason is directly refuted above by Poole, and I am sure others. Just because an event theoretically saved lives, does not mean it was not terrorism, a refutation to the terrorism charge, should be about the terrorism charge. I am trying to help you here, but it seems instead of letting me research, you are instead desperately attempting to lock me into an argument over whether the source includes the word terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How can intending to and saving lives be terrorism? What definition of terrorism is he using for this? Very strange argument, so should be explained in more detail. We can certainly include this strange view by Poole, carefully explained how he can argue that, but we should also mention the mainstream view.Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing strange about Poole's view to me. And your "mainstream view" is still off topic, and OR in so far as you include it to be a counter to the charges of State terrorism, or the reasoning behind the charges of state terrorism (the source makes no such argument, but addresses a completely different argument in support of the bombings). I think you must understand this but you persist in ignorning these facts. Nonetheless it has been explained to you, it can not stand. Luckily consensus is right.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing strange about Poole's view to me" Fine, then explain it please. What definition of terrorism is he using?Ultramarine (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Most ordinary definitions of terrorism. Hint: It is a strategy, not an end in itself. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Terrorism is a tactic, and method, and does not confine itself to any particular political goal.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which definition is Poole using? Since you stated you understand his view.Ultramarine (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He discusses it on page 128 or so, he talks about the difficulty defining terrorism to a specific definition. He argues that people tend to look at an incident that strikes them as terrorism, and base their definition around that. In the book he looks at events and responses, he does not really say one is wrong, the other is right. Its a good read if you are interested. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically anyone can define terrorism however they like?Ultramarine (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

People have personal definitions for a lot of things. I am sure you do too. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, using that as the definition, he can of course state as personal opinion that the bombings was terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however Poole does not discuss his personal opinion in the book, he is discussing other definitions and how they relate to world events and peoples classifications and how they come to them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So does he use any other definition for the bombings?Ultramarine (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He was discussing the concept of "unbelievers" and "infidels", and if those labels permit them to be targets. He was examining the view of cleric who stated there is no "civilian" in Muslim law, hence the non-believers are fair game. Poole then further considers if the definition of terrorism should include "civilians" or should be relabeled to "innocents" and then gets into Hiroshima. It si a full examination stemming from the Oxford Dictionary definition in the beginning of the chapter; "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation ..." --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

terrorism=terror? Seems broad, is bullying terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should contact Oxford and discuss with them, they would know better then myself, or email Poole and ask him what he thinks, he is the reliable source, not myself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer was attempting to end a war also, it did not succeed, and we still consider what he did to be terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure some consider him to be a freedom fighter.Ultramarine (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure someone considers those deaths worth the attempt to stop a war. It was still terrorism. What dictionary definition do you use, it may help us all resolve the impasse. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You may give him nobler motives than he had. How do we know that he was not perfectly happy to kill any amount of infidels regardless of if this saved human lives in the end or not?Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason the US says they were not simply attempting to slaughter a bunch of Asians, because they said so. However arguing the "truer" motives does not resolve the fact that motivation does not re-classify an act of terrorism into something different. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many documents and other sources regarding the decision to drop the atomic bombs. How do we know Shehzad Tanweer's motives? For all we know he was a sadist who gained pleasure from killing infidels. The many waiting virgins may also been seen as a less noble influence.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from racist comments, not all Muslims who have committed suicide bombings, due so for the same reasons video games and Saturday Night Live skits portray. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In August, 2001, the American television channel CBS aired an interview with a Hamas activist Muhammad Abu Wardeh, who recruited terrorists for suicide bombings in Israel. Abu Wardeh was quoted as saying: "I described to him how God would compensate the martyr for sacrificing his life for his land. If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness."Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So now if I can quote a soldier saying he hates Muslims, it means all soldiers hate Muslims? My apologies for calling the comments racist, they are apparently the result of stereotyping. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that the motives of alleged terrorists are different. It is wrong to say that everything is relative.Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He has already given his motive. However since you are no longer arguing the point, I guess we can conclude, especially since we have a reliable source, that terrorism can happen for many reasons, even attempting to save lives. Considering Poole is on my side, and you have not presented a source, nor argued the point. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have presented many sources. Regarding Poole, see above.Ultramarine (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

None of your many sources refute Poole. Nor do any say its not terrorism. Oddly the only source that says its not terrorism, is one I presented for you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nor do any say its not terrorism" Nor do they say that it was terrorism. Again, you seem to fall back to the point that only sources mentioning terrorism are allowed. Which is a double standard. I again also note that negative motives for the US are presented, with mainstream positive one is not.Ultramarine (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So your argument if I understand this is: My sources say it was not terrorism, because the US was trying to save lives by ending a war early" Is this correct? I present to you one source and one admission. The source states that an act can be for a good purpose, yet still be terrorism, you did not refute this, none of your sources say otherwise. The admission, is that of a suicide bomber who stated the reason he committed the act he did, an act you call terrorism, was to end two wars early, however you still call this terrorism. Your own logic now refutes itself, by your own reasoning "stopping more deaths" is not something that disqualifies an act from being terrorism or not. Considering this, you have not presented any source refuting what is in the article, that the bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism. Please refrain from attempting to state my point is based on if the source specifically mentions terrorism, the source needs to be in context and on topic, which your sources are neither. Further they are fully refuted by the line of reasoning your implying, killing civilians to save lives is not terrorism. When you can refute Poole, or the confession of Shehzad Tanweer, or simply have a source dealing with the accusation of state terrorism, let me know. Until then I will look for more myself, since I rather see a fully qualified article, then a poorly qualified one, meaning a better defense for the US, then, "Cuba sucks too" or "They started it" --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can we include many sources mentioning crimes in for example Guatemala or the Philippines, implying US state terrorism, when the source does not mention this, but not include the mainstream view regarding the atomic bombings? Double standard. Regarding the motive, the article states "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Nothing on saving lives.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He (along with myself and other editors) have already answered that, and your reply is non-responsive to the points N4GM raised, quite clearly. Repeating the same line of questions over again does not change the facts. I suggest you go back and re-read this thread, as your responses indicate you do not yet understand what is being said.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We can solve this easily. Should sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism be allowed? Ultramarine (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not toys, we are not picking red or black sources to play with. If the source is not in context with the article it will be rejected. To continue the above, let me give an example, If I accuse Giovanni of killing Ted the Farmer, and Giovanni says in his defense, "Ted was going to kill Martha" this is not an actual defense against what he did, he is admitting guilt and saying why. If that is what you want to present, I have no issue, it only makes the US look like terrorists, since they do not say they are not in your sources (since the sources are off topic), and makes it look like they have a flimsy excuse for their terrorism. I am almost to the point that I would say, even though its off topic, even though it in the end makes you look like you support the idea, go ahead. However I have respect for this project ... --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have objection to me starting removing sources which do not accuse the US of terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried helping you, but since you resort to the same question, one that has been answered before, as some fleeting basis of an imaginary argument, I have decided to give up on you. Congrats, you officially exhausted my patience, so instead of dealing with your tendentious editing, I will just ignore you. Before I begin ignoring you, I will answer your question one last time, and ask you do not ask it to me again. A source needs to be in context with the article, sources rebutting arguments, need to be based on the argument presented. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputes in Wikipedia are resolved by discussion per policy. Ignoring other editors does not look well.Ultramarine (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Indent) This is a log of your tendentious editing. Asked is when you asked the question, Answered is when I answered it. As you see, the first time you asked, I answered, yet you continued to fall back and repeat the same question over and over, clearly tendentious. So yes I agree, we should not ignore each other, however you must be ignoring me to have asked the question, that many times and not remember.

• Asked - 17:22, 6 March 2008
• Answered - 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 19:15, 6 March
• Answered - 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if you plan to discuss, and not repeat the same question that has been answered ad nauseum, please let me know. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep avoiding my questions, like if sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism are allowed. We can resolve this here and now. Are sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism allowed or not? If you have an answer, state it clearly, and we are finished.Ultramarine (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Would you please answer my question? I want a clarification since most of the material used for criticizing the US have no mention of "terrorism" or "state terrorism" at all. So I do not want a double standard where only supporting sources have such an requirement.Ultramarine (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the answer. If you have a source stating "Stewie on Family Guy, thinks terrorism is cool when its aimed at killing Megan" This clearly is not in context of the article, hence stating "Sources mentioning terrorism are permitted" is not a real answer. The question is designed as a poor looking straw man, where once the answer is received you can go against the basic principle of sourcing on its basis. The answer to your question is "Sources need to be in context to the article, and meet WP:RS" as Wikipedia policy states. Context is the most important item, it is why I cannot use a CNN article about a recent South Park episode where it is stated by Kenny, that Bush is Bin Laden. It is not in context of the article. I cannot write "Kenny says Bush is Bin Laden" So instead of attempting desperately to create a straw man, why not look for sources to support your position. Oddly I managed to find one and add it, while arguing with you, over sourcing. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you keep avoiding giving any clear answer. Allowing the double standard to continue. Are sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism allowed or not? Yes or no.Ultramarine (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am off for the day, if you get bored I have copied and pasted the answer below, feel free to add the question in between:

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador (again)

"According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

No mention of US terrorism. Objections with explanations for not removing? Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, objection, it is in context. Please read the entire section By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:SYN. "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." That claim is not the sources and material I gave above. It is from a completely different source. Per policy, such combining of sources is SYN which is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The syn violation is? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that crimes mentioned by HRW etc are US state terrorism. If not arguing that, they are simply irrelevant for this article.Ultramarine (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the sentence you feel is a syn violation. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All the sentences I quoted above. But we can take the last one if you prefer "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If arguing that this is US state terrorism, SYN violation. If not, why is it in the article? Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You make the claim this is a syn violation, either quote the sentence and explain the synthesis or I will archive this section. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already done that above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No quote is presented above, so I will close this section without a quote being present. If you feel their is a SYN violation, you should be able to show specifically what it is. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Read it again: "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Ultramarine (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense Ultramarine. First, a wikipedia article is not merely a stringing together of quotes from reliable sources utilizing the exact same terminology. A wikipedia article is there to educate the reader about a particular subject. Often that involves making background claims, so that the reader can get their bearings corresponding to a particular historical, geographical, political, etc. situation. This is exactly what the sentence saying ...."According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."... is doing. In terms of the Human Rights Watch Report "El Salvador: A Decade of Terror", it describes systematic terror and ascribes it to a state (El Salvador), and describes U.S. complicity in the decade of terror in a special section wherein is described U.S. compllcity in terms of military funding and advisory roles, apologetics, and diplomatic cover and defamation of critics. NOBODY writes articles tailor made for wikipedia and your personal opinion does not matter in the least. You are engaging in dissembling based on mere semantic technicalities. BernardL (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a quote accusing the US of terrorism, then state it. Background material should be presented in other articles, like one on the Civil war. Even if we have some some background material then this should be clearly stated since the current version implies that these crimes are the US responsibility. We must also mention human rights violations by the insurgents and good things done by the government to for the text to be NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations against the insurgents are already mentioned in the balancing paragraph. Moreover, in the HRW retrospective report under the section "The Perpetrators of Violence" the guerrillas are not even mentioned. First listed are the armed forces, and second are the Death Squads, wherein it is noted, "it has been well established over the decade that from the late 1960's until the mid-1980's the death squads were simply plainclothes paramilitary units run by the armed forces." By the same token the Truth Commission report attributes the great majority of gross human rights violations to government forces and not the FMLN. This article should not be an uncritical expository of U.S. propaganda either.BernardL (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Creating a special background section could be interesting. Would accurately show what are accusations of terrorism and what is not and if the background is presented fairly. Will try that later on some nation.Ultramarine (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Allez-y! Je m'en fou!BernardL (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Break

There is an allegation the following sentence is a SYN violation as pointed out by Ultramarine: "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992." If anyone has the source for this statement, please present it so we can make sure it is not synthesized. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one example from the paragaph above all of which violate SYN. In turn just one paragraph of many with the same problem.Ultramarine (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You pointed out this sentence as synthesis. Unless you are going to be detailed, do not simply copy and paste a paragraph and say "somewhere in there is synthesis." Highlight specifically what you feel is being synthesized in detail, quoting the relevant passages and what is in each source, and what is being synthesized. I guess we will tackle this sentence first, once you tell us what two or more sources are being synthesized above, and what is wrong with them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "somewhere in there is synthesis." Every sentence is a synthesis in the paragraph. None accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not synthesis. Synthesis as noted in WP:OR is taking two sources and combining them to make your statement. The statement above does not even include the word "terrorism" so I am not sure how its synthesis. The sentence does not make the claim the US is a state sponsor of terrorism. Again, please explain the synthesis in the sentence above, if you wish to argue the point of the supporting paragraph, then please give an example of two or more sources being synthesized and the statement they are being synthesized into. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the statements are not about state terrorism by the US, then they are simply irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the synthesis in the sentence above, if you wish to argue the point of the supporting paragraph, then please give an example of two or more sources being synthesized and the statement they are being synthesized into. If you cannot support the argument, I will consider this resolved. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two alternatives. 1. The statements are about state terrorism and the US. However, the statements do not mention terrorism. Taking some other statements mentioning terrorism as evidence for that the questionable statements are in fact about state terrorism and the US violate SYN. 2. The statements are not about state terrorism by the US. Then they are irrelevant or could be background info. For that, see the end of the section above.Ultramarine (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can not show the synthesis then this is resolved. Either you are making a complaint about synthesis or you are not. So either highlight it, or admit you were wrong and we can all move on to improving the article. If you want to argue its off topic and not synthesis, then we close this section and you can open a new section with that complaint, that way everything stays organized. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Close of this section" You mean archiving? Not for ongoing discussions. What is your position, do these statements make accusations of state terrorism by the US or not? Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is resolved then. This section was regarding the synthesis of the paragraph, you failed to present anything regarding this, choosing not to show which two or more sources were being synthesized and into what statement. Please start a new section if you are no longer stating this is synthesis, if you are please state which two or more sources are being synthesized, please quote the sources if possible, and explain how the two are being synthesized into the final statement. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. In particular, see the section above and my last comment to BernardL.Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not play "the last word" game with you. Until you present your argument, by presenting which two or more sources, preferably with quotes, are being used to synthesize a final statement, that statement should be quoted, I will consider this issue resolved and ignore any further comments as tendentious editing, and refusal on your part to support your argument of synthesis. To argue synthesis, you have to present proof, not pick a paragraph and say "Its synthesis" without pointing out what statements are being taken from which sources, and showing the final statement is a result of improper merging of those two sources. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reply to my last comment to BernardL above, please do so. There I state what I intend to do.Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material regarding Nicaragua

"The U.S. argued that it was primarily for the benefit of El Salvador, and to help it to respond to an alleged armed attack by Nicaragua, that the United States claims to be exercising a right of collective self-defense, which it regards as a justification of its own conduct towards Nicaragua. El Salvador, joined the US in their Declaration of Intervention which it submitted on 15 August 1984, where it alleged itself the victim of an armed attack by Nicaragua, and that it had asked the United States to exercise for its benefit the right of collective self-defense. The court found evidence for an arms flow between Nicaragua and to the insurgents in El Salvador in 1979-81. However, there was not enough evidence to show that the Nicaraguan government was imputable for this or that the US response was proportional. The court also found established that certain transborder incursions into the territory of Guatemala and Costa Rica, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, were imputable to the Government of Nicaragua. However, neither Guatemala and Costa Rica made any request for intervention by the US and El Salvador only in 1984, well after the US intervention started.[30]

One critic of the is David Horowitz, who argues in the book The Anti-Chomsky Reader, that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the Court has no jurisdiction over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the U.S. did not since the Soviet Bloc states were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court. The U.S. did accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Nicaragua case."

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The edit is original research. Your introduction of the material amounts to a review of the entire case between the U.S. and Nicaragua. This is not the place for that. If you would like to introduce the counter-arguments and explore them in-depth then please do so on the appropriate page (i.e. -- the Nicaragua_vs._U.S. page).

The only reason so much material from the court case is currently included in the article is because you introduced a butchered, purposefully misleading quotation from the court document that was so badly mauled it appeared to imply the opposite of what the ICJ had actually concluded. Then, you -- no one else, only you -- provoked an edit war any time anyone tried to rectify the falsely constructed passage you had posted up.

The response, then, was to introduce an abbreviated version of the court's findings so that there would be no misunderstanding. Now, you are attempting to re-argue the case on this page. Except that this is not the place for it. The section in question discusses accepted international opinion regarding the Nicaragua vs United States ICJ ruling and how it relates to State Terrorism. As such, a blow-by-blow account of the arguments given during the case is irrelevant and, insofar as none of the material you've introduced has any direct bearing upon the question of "State Terrorism", nor does any of it have anything to do with the conclusions of the court, the material clearly violates WP:SYN and WP:OR.

Aside from being poor writing, this also does not appear to be on the topic. Justifications? Off-topic. (At least to this section.) Lack of jurisdiction? Does not mean what the court says is any less right, merely that they cannot enforce it.

I could see "justification", or perhaps better, "rationale", in a section of its own, like the Terrorism#Causes section. But "justification" or "rationale" ("why did they do this?") is too far removed from the "allegations" themselves ("what did they do?") to be on-topic to every section. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with first text? I presented what the Court stated in the source. Please state any factual error. Note I also stated the Court found the US defence not good enough. Regarding, "edit war any time anyone tried to rectify", that is false, I have not reverted that material anytime. Source if claiming that.

I see no objection to the second text which is much older except possibly "lack of jurisdiction? Does not mean what the court says is any less right, merely that they cannot enforce it." That was only one of its point and hardly trivial. If there is no jurisdiction the court has no right to take on a case. But there were also several other points.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this in response to me? I never claimed "factual errors", merely "off-topic". I never mentioned "edit war".

Oh, I see: Someone forgot to sign his comments, above mine ... see [31].  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material regarding terrorism against the US

"has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks, for example 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, the Pan Am Flight 103, allegedly with the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction, allegedly with the assistance of East Germany.[32][33]"

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Being the victim of a terrorist attack is not the same as being the victim of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. The concepts are distinct. "Terrorism" is a general term, "State Terrorism" more specialized. The sources you used did not make that distinction. Further, this portion of the introduction does not touch upon the U.S. accusations against other countries; it only says that the U.S. has "suffered terrorist attacks" -- which, of course, does not necessarily imply "state terrorism".

In short, the current sentence is pretty much the only thing you can keep from your suggestions. Of course, if you had introduced this in a sandbox beforehand we could have helped you trim it up an get it looking like it should. But you -- only you -- have refused to participate in this consensual agreement that has already been used by the editors here for something like three months, now. Thus, once again i will urge you: please introduce controversial or major edits in a sandbox or on this discussion page before committing them to the article space. It will save you work and all the editors here a lot of headaches. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources you use to attack the US only mention "terrorism", not "state terrorism" or "state-sponsored terrorism", so there seem to be a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One of many examples. Much material do not even mention terrorism at all:

The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.

— Noam Chomsky, interview on Pakistan Television

Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The source says the US was the victim of terrorism ... Do they say the US employs state terrorism as a counter for state terrorism? I did not see where you put this info, so some context will be needed. Do you want your suggestion in its own section, or as a rebuttal to one of the existing ones? seriously I wouldn't mind a section where the US is saying, you do it so we do it. If it is the reason given by the government, then it should be included. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Own section. Article title do not imply that the content must only be about state terrorism by the US. Can state terrorism against the US as well.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, it is hard to follow exactly what is being worked out in this section with all of the indent/unindent/indented quotes - but it looks like you are saying that the quote from the Chomsky interview 'doesnt mention terrorism at all'. Am I reading these posts correctly? The material: "the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism"". Are you REALLY trying to say that you do not see that that quote says right there in black and white US (a state) did terrorism? Chomsky is analysing the material and we are quoting what he says. If you honestly were not able to pull those words from the short excerpt you quoted, you really probably should leave editing of wikipedia to people who can read and quote sources. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky argued that material not mentioning "state terrorism" was not allowed. I pointed out the double standard regarding this.Ultramarine (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And how does an example that clearly DOES contain the words apply to anything? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing such an extreme view, including only "terrorism" is fine with me. But Stone put to sky wanted to exclude "has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks, for example 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, the Pan Am Flight 103, allegedly with the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction, allegedly with the assistance of East Germany.[34][35]" What is your view?Ultramarine (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i didn't remove the Pan Am material. Someone else did, i presume because the sources weren't up to snuff (the sources you suggest do generally seem to share that trait). Secondly, suffering from "a terrorist attack" does not equal "suffering from an instance of state terrorism". Certainly, terrorism by Al Qaida does not qualify as "state terrorism", and in addition i would be extremely surprised if you could find any reliable source, anywhere, that would make the case for an explicit link between Al Qaida and the Afghani-Taleban government. Even the U.S. has only gone so far in their accusations. Nothing in any of the literature i've ever read (and it was a long time ago, but quite a bit) has ever said anything more than that the Taleban "refused" to hand over Al Qaida leadership. That clearly doesn't qualify as "state sponsorship" or "support", even on the farthest stretch.

So simply stating that the U.S. has "suffered" terrorist attacks is inappropriate for this article. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but i don't think he was a "state terrorist". The U.S. suffered from his attack, as well, but since it's not state terrorism it doesn't get mentioned here. Finally, if you do want to include the Pan Am bombing as an instance of "state terrorism" (or "state sponsored", or whatever) then you'll need to get a clearly worded document that makes that explicit allegation. You haven't done that, yet.

Now, having said that, i'm perfectly willing to make a new section for this proposed content you'd like to include. Once again, however: please set it up in a sandbox for comment, as a courtesy to your fellow editors, here. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Still this double standard. Many of the critical sources do not mention state terrorism, as shown above. Many do not even mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go, changing your argument again. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. The other editors here have already explained this to you repeatedly; i myself have explained it to you repeatedly, now, for something close to two years. There is no double standard, here. Either you find some sources to anchor your claim of state terrorism -- and, i will remind you, that this is a standard you yourself imposed on this page -- or you will not be allowed to include your content. It's just that simple. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again,one of many examples. Much material do not even mention terrorism at all:

The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.

— Noam Chomsky, interview on Pakistan Television

Ultramarine (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed with you at length. On that basis, i am going to ignore this question because there is no valid reason for rehashing those arguments. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Has not been answered because there is no good answer. Chomsky does not include the words "state terrorism", so arguing that this is justification for excluding my material is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You have repeatedly declared there is no good answer. The other editors here - totaling well over 20 over the course of this last year or so - have overwhelmingly rejected your arguments as spurious rants without any footing in reality. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are not 20 editors in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i'm sorry -- i didn't realize you were temporally challenged. Let me rephrase that for you:

If you count backwards each hour from this moment and then lump them into packets of 24, then i suspect that from today you will discover that, within the space of 365 cycles, there are approximately 20 different editors which have explained to you that the current argument you are using is utterly unsupportable.

Does that make it any clearer? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only discussed the issue on this deletion for two days.Ultramarine (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification for Ultramarine

I have filed a request at AN/I to review your behavior here, which seems to be aimed at maintaining a constant edit-war. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That link did not work for me, so I took the liberty of fixing it. Thank you for the notification. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have also noted that it is you who have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, sockpuppets, and attack accounts. Not I.Ultramarine (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan

I want to cut the Japan section down soon, by maybe a paragraph, once I compile more sources in defense of the bombing, specifically stating it was not terrorism and why it was not. I will present something Monday or Tuesday everyone can look at, and hopefully we can agree on a paragraph to cut, the section is much too large, and I do not want to stack a rebuttal onto the end. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I have an idea for the layout of the article, something that may be more "clean" and allow for Ultra and whoever else wishes to, to find and add some appropriate sources:

• Location in the world
  • Event (presented as simply the facts
    • Accusation of terrorism (what happened that makes it state terrorism)
    • Rebuttal (the argument why its not)

I think this can help clean everything up a bit, the article is getting messy and finding a rebuttal may be difficult in the mess. Ideas?

I'm not averse to the general outline, but i'd suggest that this should be the general approach to the "second" section of the article (going by BTP's suggestion, above). What i think we should do is write up a good "overview" section that treats the various issues in their full complexity, then have a second area where specific cases are made (one section for U.S. accusations, another section for accusations against the U.S.). Thus, i'm not sure the "rebuttal" section would be even necessary, and almost certain it'd be inappropriate; that's opening up a can of worms that could lead to a never-ending expansion of the article as both sides try to bolster their point of view with increasing evidence.

Moreover, lest people accuse me of simply wanting to delete material to bolster my own POV, i object to this equally for both sides (i.e. -- the U.S.'s claims against others should also not include rebuttals).

I may be wrong about this, though, and it may be that we could set stringent enough limitations on the "rebuttal" sections that we could manage the feat. What might be a good thing to do is limit the "rebuttal" sections only to a fraction of the length of the "accusations" section -- perhaps 1/8 or 1/16 the length -- in which case it might be o.k. But that might appear arbitrary, could cause a lot of headaches should the need for an exception emerge, and i really don't think that everyone here would actually "play by the rules". It's already gotten to the point where a simple, policy-supported request like "Please introduce edits to a sandbox" is being overtly ignored and rejected by a vociferous few (one?). So it might be that, for at least the moment, we would need to just do without "rebuttals" altogether. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the rebuttal sections should be limited in any matter, they should be equal size to satisfy WP:NPOV, if they can be made that large. I also think its important that I differentiate what was being suggested, and what I am suggesting. US accusations of state terrorism against other countries is not a rebuttal to an accusation. For instance as noted above, if I accuse Giovanni of killing Ted the Famer, and he says Ted killed Martha, that does not mean Giovanni did not kill Ted, its not a rebuttal. If such a section was going to be created, and within a reasonable size, that is fine. I honestly think such a section should be in its own article, "State terrorism against the United States" and in contrast "State terrorism by the United States." My suggestion however is direct refutations to the accusation, much like the paragraph I added at the end of the Hiroshima section, where the subject of is the event terrorism is looked at and refuted specifically. As for location I believe they should follow each accusation. It makes for a cleaner read in understanding what is being said, what is being refuted. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What will happen is that people who object to the material will attempt -- and probably succeed -- to overload the rebuttal sections and make them four times as large as the fundamental sections. The article will then turn into a mockery of its intended subject and essentially be a place where anyone who wants to echo State Department talking points will come to post information, repeating all the various tiny differences in all the various news articles. Obviously, that is neither encyclopedic nor pedagogical. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are more rebuttals then accusation to the specific charge, then it should be noted, not hidden. Limiting the rebuttal of a charge to 1/16th of the charge is creating an article with bias, making them equal (at most) however and following the accusation, allows for NPOV. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, this is a place for investigating the concrete relationship between the U.S. and State Terror. By allowing "rebuttals" we will basically be opening ourselves up to every sort of crackpot commentator around. Just look at the sort of stuff Ultramarine has begun to introduce as "rebuttal" -- and i guarantee you, if you don't think people like him will appear and start stomping about in the same manner then you are really being optimistic. Go take a gander at the Propaganda Model page. There, the "rebuttals" take up some 2 to 3 5ths of the page. Most are clearly tangential and irrelevant to the topic, but that doesn't stop a few admins from freezing it every time someone tries to go in and clean it up into something that looks even vaguely respectable.

That's what will happen here. Instead of getting people to contribute to the U.S. "accused" section, we'll get people who spend all their time building rebuttals. Those rebuttals will be based on flimsy, off-topic evidence and we'll all get bogged down in pointless, circular arguments. It'll be a nightmare.

On the other hand, by forcing people to avoid rebuttals -- and that would be equally true for both accusers and the accused -- then we will force folks to develop their own arguments and support them with solid evidence. In contrast, people who contest the evidence will be forced to police the information and make sure it's tight, on-topic, and incontrovertible.

Like i said: i'll be happy to consider rebuttals in the future, but for the moment it's an idea that is clearly before it's time. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Crackpot commentator around" WP:RS protects against this.
2. "Just look at the sort of stuff Ultramarine has begun to introduce as "rebuttal"" - Not information rebutting, hence why I have been against his additions, however what I added is in context, hence a good rebuttal.
3. "you are really being optimistic." - WP:AGF
4. Propaganda Model - One messy page is not a reason to remove WP:NPOV.

You seem to think John Bobs rebuttal is article worthy. I am talking about WP:RS sources rebutting the argument specifically that these issues are terrorism. Further there is nothing for you to consider, WP:RS says rebuttals can be included, undue weight, says they should be given equal footing, since they are the other side of the coin. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but we have two fundamentally different conceptions of NPOV working, here.

My vision is that accurate, concise, limited summaries of various concerns be presented on a main page with the supporting evidence presented on a linking page (eventually -- not immediately). In my vision, NPOV consists of presenting accusations the U.S. makes against other nations and the accusations made against the U.S. by other nations.

It seems your idea is that we should allow accusations against/by other nations, and then also include the defenses against them. My suggestion is that these defenses are really beside the point. It's rather like opening up an article on, say, the quantization of light and insisting upon a lengthy rebuttal that includes the concept of ether and string theory. Sure -- the rebuttals exist. But it's not the purpose of the page to present those rebuttals. The purpose of the page is to present the theory and show how it plays out in various nations' accusations and legal proceedings.

Rebuttals are things for courts and judges to decide. Now, that being said, i do not consider the Japan section as it was written some five or ten days ago to contain a "rebuttal". It contains accurate information about the state of the literature, but no "rebuttals". That is as it should be: commentary on the state of the literature is o.k, but "rebuttals" to "arguments" should remain invalid. Technically speaking, this page doesn't present "arguments". It presents quotations from scholars who deliberate over the phrase "state terrorism". Insofar as a scholar debates this particular phrase, then i have no problem presenting the deliberation.

But "rebuttals" should remain beyond the pale. 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not recommended reporting who the US accuses, that is off topic I believe. I do think defenses specifically to calling or labeling an event terrorism should be included. This page is not "Theory of State terrorism and its relation to the US." YOu want to comment on the state of literature, but not mention the state of literature which says specifically, these instances are not state terrorism, thats a violation of NPOV. I think we are partially on the same page, as the Hiroshima information I added, its a rebuttal of the notion it is terrorism. It is a deliberation over the situation and its relation to the phrase, then a refutation of its applicability. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No "rebuttal" section, please. I don't think "rebuttals" as such belong in the article. Rather, a good rebuttal may have us removing the accusation as off-topic (WP:FRINGE).

We can have an "opposing views" subsection, I suppose. (The "view" opposed would be that this is indeed an instance of state terrorism".) If specific "opposing views" are significant, we can have a section for each.

Or we could just present all views in one section. It seems possible, at least while the section remains short.

Either way, the space allotted to each view (other than the truly marginal) should be proportionate to its prominence (WP:NPOV). Not equal. Not severely limited. But proportionate to its prominence. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree fully. I think you put it the best. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OR debate

No OR please. Accusations of against the US must mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We cannot violate WP:SYN and ourselves have a discussion of whether events are state terrorism. Violates OR.Ultramarine (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see: someone suggests an outline for future content. Someone else suggests a revision. And then Ultramarine comes along and says that we must not have WP:SYN or WP:OR.

Let us assume i am a very stupid person. Please explain to me how your response has even the slightest bit of relevance to the question it is puportedly responding to? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that we cannot state that for example x number of people were killed in this conflict and then ourselves argue in different section regarding whether this was terrorism by the US. We need a source arguing that a specific event was state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Actually what you're indicating is that you have a difficult time distinguishing between meta-level discussions and debate over content. That's fine - i have no problem with it - i just hope that any lurkers here notice that your response to anything you don't really understand is obviously "No WP:OR, no WP:SYN." Stone put to sky (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of part of the definition of Low Intensity Conflict

Stone put to sky, why did you delete without explanation part of the definition of Low Intensity Conflict? [36]Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I introduced Ellipses and edited the quote to relevant passages. What, precisely, do you feel i did that was objectionable? Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the start of the definition "conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies." Ultramarine (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And all of that information is provided again, much more clearly and concretely, in what follows -- which i did not delete. So what's the problem? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of for example competing ideologies or "contending states or groups".Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Then let us presume i am a very stupid person and cannot see why these things are important to include in the passage. Explain it to me: why are these things integral components that we must -- in order to fulfill a neutral point of view -- include in this definition of LIC? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, some people may assume that it only involves states.Ultramarine (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on your side at first, because I read it quickly and seen "states" specifically mentioned. However it does say "states or groups" so I do not see the difference. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"states and groups" only in the deleted text.Ultramarine (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly unintelligible. Remember: i am very stupid. I do not understand. Presuming that, explain it to me. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some information was lost. No reason for deleting part of a definition. Someone could assume that LIC only involves conflict between nations. Not between a nation and a group for example.Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I readded the "states and groups" this should be resolved to everyones liking I hope. Shortens it as intended, and lists what Ultra wanted listed. While I disagree it limits it to states, since it says "states and groups" I guess comprehension is up to the reader. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here