Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Divestment (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 13 July 2007 (DO NOT remove my comments, they are not trolling, I am bringing this up on ANI Pablo is an active editor on this page who actively wants to delete it, hardly an impartial editor to add nasty warnings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Troll warning

United States B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep (no consensus), June 25, 2007, see discussion. Keep, March 30, 2007, see discussion. Speedy Keep, January 11, 2007, see discussion. Keep, December 12, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), August 9, 2006, see discussion. Keep (no consensus), November 25, 2005, see discussion.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Guatemala

Here is a source + proof of prior publishing to satisfy WP:RS, further the person is an academic in the field:

As far as America was concerned, then, democracy and social justice were the principal problems. These dire threats to U.S. hegemony in the region had to be violently eliminated. Referring to the decades of bloodshed consequently imposed by U.S.-sponsored terrorists on the Guatemalan population, the chair of the UN Historical Clarification Commission, Law Professor Christian Tomuschat, stressed when presenting the UN report on the crisis that the U.S. government and private companies “exercised pressure to maintain the country’s archaic and unjust socioeconomic structure.”

In particular, the U.S. client regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala regularly massacred their own populations, slaughtering over 100,000 civilians during the 1980s and into the beginning of 1990s. Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism, propping up the dictatorships responsible for such violence while actively helping them carry it out, choosing only to militarily subvert the vastly more democratic and egalitarian Nicaraguan government of the Sandinistas.

The judicial wing of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (or World Court) prohibited the American military operation to topple the Sandinistan administration in 1986, calling on the United States to pay substantial reparations. Condemning the “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua, the Court further ruled that aid to the forces attacking Nicaragua was not humanitarian, but military.

From all this the following correlation can thus be clearly discerned: The U.S. is willing to support dictatorship, state terror and mass impoverishment when these are conducive to opportunities for investment and access to regional raw materials.

A Critical Review Of The Objectives Of U.S. Foreign Policy In The Post-World War II Period -By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Proof of prior publishing:

• The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism

• Olive Branch press

• The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001

• Progressive Press

• Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq

• New Society Publishers

• The War on Truth

• Arris Books

Comments

Which specific act did the U.S. engage in? This is another personal definition of terrorism that's not supporatable. Souns like thisbelongs in his bio, but not here. --Tbeatty 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the source, that is why it is provided. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 19:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it. It described Guatemalan state terrorism, not U.S. state terrorism. --Tbeatty 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read it again, direct quotes of US Sponsored terrorism on Guatemala are sourced above. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism," & "Referring to the decades of bloodshed consequently imposed by U.S.-sponsored terrorists on the Guatemalan population" Please check to verify you are reading the source listed below the passages. --74.73.16.230 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read it again. Like I said in the initital paragraph, this is his own special definition of terrorism. Guatamala had a government. Guatemalan troops engaged in counter-terrorsim. Some of those Guatemalan troops engaged in terrorism. No U.S. particpation. Therefore, the U.S. is guilty of sponsoring terrorism. This is an incredible leap of logic that simply is not supportable. Put it in this guys bio, but not here. This definition of terrorism was voted down in the archive (listed above) months ago. It simply does not have any consensus for inclusion. --Tbeatty 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We report WP:RS sources. It is ok for scholars to engage in original research, just not us. Thank you for your concerns. I guess if there are no further issues I will add it when the page unprotects. --74.73.16.230 21:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And we can always revert your edit as well. Thanks for contributing.--Beguiled 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is called vandalism to removed cited information without discussion or explanation based on policy. Reverting is for acts of vandalism only. Keep your threats to yourself. I see you also do not even present an arguement, just a baseless threat. Try to be productive and offer your opinion if you find something wrong with the above statements. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to remove your radical POV from the articles. If you have a problem with that then maybe you're in the wrong website. I completely concur with Tbeatty that your addition is leading the witness as is the references you provide. This website doesn't exist for editors like you to promote fringe evidence as fact, citing far left poppycock to support your biases. This kind of POV pushing is the same style I have seen on the September 11, 2001 articles, where outlandish opinions and non-science are passed off as fact. I never made a threat, Tbeabby made comments and you bascially told him too bad. I am just returning the favor.--Beguiled 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Leading the witness? is this para-wiki-lawyering? The criteria set out for this article is that the source meets WP:RS, do you have proof it does not? I have shown multiple published books on international relations, the person is also an academic in the field. The next criteria is that the source must state US supported/sponsored "state terrorism." Are you stating the source does not cite this? --74.73.16.230 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed...claims the U.S. and other western powers are "deeply complicit in the vast majority of the heinous crimes against humanity he (Saddam) perpetrated during his iron fisted rule". No doubt the U.S. initially supported Saddam, but the U.S. and the western powers all condemned his gassing of the Kurds and other atrocities. Ahmed seems to be taking great leaps by proclaiming early support of Saddam by the west as being the same as supporting or being responsible for his actions. Thats like saying that parents are responsible for the crimes some child might do later in his life...maybe they did the child wrong, but no court of law I know of is going to charge parents for the murders their 18 year old child does, or for capital offenses their child might do at any age.--Beguiled 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the nice Mr Rumsfeld not visit the nice Mr Hussein to continue their relationship despite the massacre you describe? Clearly, the US had no qualms about supporting SH following that heinous crime as he was "the enemy of our enemy": Iran. Nomen Nescio 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Press, they look like the same company that has published a lot of idiotic September 11 conspiracy theory books: http://www.waronfreedom.org/ including the one you cite above, written by Ahmed.--Beguiled 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Published Source ... Doesnt state published sources that have not published books related to 911. You can be angry all you wish. I am still waiting for your policy based argument. If you have a complaint about the text above that will be great, however try to avoid ad hominem attacks on authors. --74.73.16.230 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We cull sources all the time. This one would be undue weight to include because hte opinion is such an extreme minority viewpoint. Misplaced Pages can cover his viewpoint in his biography. Not here though. --Tbeatty 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy based argument please, not your personal opinion. Thank you. If you do not get the picture I am no longer hearing WP:IDONTLIKEIT based arguments. This is an encyclopedia and the content of the above goes directly to the topic, so well that it uses the terms exactly as asked. --74.73.16.230 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I have to actually say Undue Weight? I thought just simply saying "undue weight" would be sufficient. But if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. --Tbeatty 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What is undue weight? This is an article on "State Terrorism by the United States" providing sources for acts of State Terrorism by the United States is not undue weight ... In the future to prevent these WP:IDONTLIKEIT based arguments, please read the policies more clearly and if needed request on the policy pages a review of your opinion on its application. Thank you. it seems anyway by looking at active partipants that excluding does not have any support. --74.73.16.230 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support removal of yet more unsourced US bashing--RCT 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support what? Its not in the article, nor is it being proposed for adding, the content based on the source has yet to be written. It will however be noted you opposed an addittion as US bashing regardless of what it says, good job. --74.73.16.230 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Beguiled made a good point ....... had his example been actually correct. The U.S. did condemn the gassing of the Kurds while at the same time supplying Saddam with satelite targetting and instructions to make more efficient use of the same gas. Does their condemnation pardon their complicity? So too it was in Guatamala. It is now public record they condemned what was done there, but also public record that they knowingly supported it by their actions as well. Wayne 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW.. If we exclude a RS because they have published something in another subject that is disputed then we will have precedent for not allowing editors who supported the failed RfD to edit this topic. Basically it's the same arguement and just as spurious. Wayne 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely the same argument. The real adagium is criticism of the US is ipso facto anti-americanism, and anti-americanism is not allowed. Subsequently people browse WP-policy to find anything they can use to substantiate deleting said criticism. Even a "sourced critique" cannot remain, hence the refutal of "RS because they have published something in another subject that is disputed," since everybody knows the US is in the business of doing-good and anybody saying otherwise is a liar. Nomen Nescio 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I am in favor of criticising the US for it's role in Guatemala. Support of that regime deserves criticism. So does aspects of U.S. support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. So does aspects of the current support of Israel. It is not, however, State Terrorism by the United States and therefore doesn't belong in this article. --Tbeatty 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source: What has remained invisible in the past 30 years of US sponsored state terror is now part of a tragic and bitter record of human rights abuses world-wide. From US support of Indonesia in its massive invasion and killing in East Timor in the 1970's to the genocidal campaign against Mayan Indians in Guatemala by US backed military dictatorships and the US induced contra attacks against Nicaragua in the 1980's, US foreign policy has undermined the rule of international law and violated fundamental human rights.

The Visible and The Invisible: US-Sponsored State Terror - Fran Shor

Fran Shor bio:

• Professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at Wayne State University in Detroit
• Teaches courses in the fields of historical and cultural studies
• Fulbright Distinguished Scholars Award to New Zealand
• Visiting Faculty Fellowship to the University of Melbourne

Bibliography:

• Communal Organization and Social Transition: A Case Study from the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies - Society for Utopian Studies
• Bush-League Spectacles: Empire, Politics, and Culture in Bushwhacked America - Factory School
• Transcending the Myths of Patriotic Militarized Masculinity: Armoring, Wounding, and Transfiguration in Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July - The Journal of Men's Studies
• Utopianism and Radicalism in a Reforming America: 1888-1918 - Greenwood Press
• Cultural identity and Americanization: The life history of a Jewish anarchist - University Press of Hawaii
• The IWW and oppositional politics in World War I: Pushing the system beyond its limits - Radical History Review

Published in the following journals, some duplicates from above:

• Radical History Review
• International Labor and Working Class History
• Journal of American Culture
• Journal of Men’s Studies
• Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture
• Prospects
• Labour History
• Film & History
• The Insurgent Sociologist
• Utopian Studies

To top the cake a member of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights. Now that it appears its not undue weight to give a section of this article to two authors who apparently belive Guatemala was state terrorism on behalf of the US. I will obviously have more to come, this was just to dispute the last fragment of wiki-lawyering. --74.73.16.230 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty wrote above: "But if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I want to clarify this as I think it might be helpful. Are you saying that, in your opinion, this point applies to the views of anyone who accuses the US of state terrorism, i.e. there are essentially no sources that can be included in this article because it violates undue weight? If not, what is your threshold for inclusion here? Better yet, what is an example of an acceptable source that accuses the US of state terrorism and is already in the article? With respect to Guatemala specifically, there were a couple of sources that accused the US of state terrorism prior to that whole section being deleted, and now there seem to be one or two more. Is your argument that, no matter how many sources are found, they can not be added in on the Guatemala topic because the argument that the US committed state terrorism in Guatemala is only held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority?" If so, how have you determined that that argument is only held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"--i.e. what sources have you located that express the majority view on this topic, and how have you determined that that is, in fact, the majority view? I'm genuinely interested in a response to these points (I think it might help us to move forward), from Tbeatty but also from others who agree with his view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is not Tbeatty's "opinion"...it is policy..see the undue weight clause of NPOV --MONGO 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already included two academic sources not including the one that was already in the section when it was blanked. It seems undue weight does not apply anymore. --SixOfDiamonds 13:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of a few do not outweigh the mainstream view. That is why there is the undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct so until you prove its undue weight I do not see a problem. I have proven multiple academics from a variety of backgrounds and fields see it this way. I await your proof that it is undue weight. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what you add when the article is unprotected.--MONGO 15:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, but you cannot keep information that meets WP:RS and WP:V and has been published out because of Undue Weight, as the section points out, emphasis mine: If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I can further give more sources of discussion that are WP:RS such as Counter Punch articles etc. However I am presenting the most academic writers I find only to meet the requirements here. If preferred I can provide 5 more sources that meet WP:RS, just I was not able to verify their academic backgrounds or bio's. Anyway per the very section you are quoting, it seems this material can be developed further which I will now take up the task of doing. Further I hope you do read it, much like everyone who visits to read this article. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is still a violation of SYNTH. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote radical views and pass them off as mainstream ones. To do so is a violation of undue weight.--MONGO 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, the quotes are given above. Since I have not written anything yet, I am not sure how I could have violated WP:SYNTH. You did check the source right? --SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Undue Weight does not say you cannot state radical views, especially when they have "been presented and discussed elsewhere" Further the idea that the US committed terrorism in Guatemala is far from "radical" I have already presented 3 sources and you can search amazon.com if you really wish to see the wealth of information on it. --SixOfDiamonds 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've outlined it above. Numerous times. That quote applies to all viewpoints in all articles, including this one. It's simple really. One basic piece is that the source can't use their own personal definition of state terrorism. Put their personal definition in their biography and you can repeat any fringe theories they hold. There are people who would define our immigration laws as "state terrorism" or our minimum wage and hour laws as "state terrorism." Heck, I'd bet Noam Chomsky already does. But that does not make those claims valid for a state terrorism article. They are fringe minority viewpoints. Find a peer reviewed journal on terrorism and find the article that names the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. --Tbeatty 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, will we rename the article to "U.S. sponsored State Terrorists" if that source is accepted since that's that claim? I guess Guatamala may fit that unless civil wars don't count as someone on my talk page claimed about Bosnia. --Tbeatty 05:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the passage where he gives his personal definition of terrorism and states that that definition will be the one in use throughout the paper. Thank you. I couldnt find it, but it seems you did. --74.73.16.230 10:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tbeatty, I'm trying to get some specificity here (which I did not really get from your last response, and which I'm asking for in a sincere attempt to understand your viewpoint), so let me narrow my questions down and hopefully we can go from there (i.e. I might have other questions, as might you, but if you can answer these directly that would be great).

1) Since, according to Misplaced Pages, "state terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition," and since you say that authors cannot use "their own personal definition of state terrorism," which definition or definitions of state terrorism do you require us to use for this article and why?

2) You seem to say that in order to source this article we must "find a peer reviewed journal on terrorism." What specific aspects of Misplaced Pages policy (for example sentences or phrases in WP:V or WP:RS) are you relying upon in order to argue that the only sources that are acceptable for this article are peer reviewed journals on terrorism? If I'm wrong in seeing that as your argument, what other sources would be acceptable to you?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The opninions you have presented violate Undue Weight. WP:V and WP:RS are the minimum test. The next test is undue weight. Any peer reviewed journal would be acceptable. --Tbeatty 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not answer either question, which were quite specific and straightforward. I am not asking you to comment on any specific content. Please do not simply say, WP:V, WP:RS, and undue weight as listing out these well-known policies does not explain your position with respect to this particular article. Let me try again. There is no agreed upon definition for state terrorism. Which definition or definitions of state terrorism do you require us to use for this article and why? What specific policy (a sentence or a phrase from a policy) are you invoking to argue that only peer reviewed journals on terrorism are appropriate sources for this article (as opposed to, for example, published books, or articles in mainstream news sources)? Let me know if this is unclear, but I think these are fairly basic (and crucial) questions.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in this subject and would like to contribute. Here's a couple peer reviewed journals I found relating to terrorism: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (EBSCO access required) and the Terrorism Research Journal. Although that latter has yet to be published, it is peer reviewed although it mentions nowhere on the page that it is. I also have access to hundreds of subscriber-only journals and archives, so I'm here if anybody needs any sources pulled. east.718 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Since there was no consensus for Divestment/Travb/anon's page more from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to State terrorism by the United States, what is the justification for its continuing to be under that title? Note that I am not asking if there is a consensus to restore it to Allegations of.... I am asking what justification there is, absent consensus for the previous move, for it to remain under this title. Tom Harrison 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support a move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. east.718 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not have a problem with the current title (I do not know the history of when it was moved from that to this), but I have a feeling that more people are comfortable with the "Allegations of..." title based on earlier straw polls and numerous comments in the AfD (I think somewhere I also saw a suggestion to begin the title with "Alleged..." which is about the same thing but more succinct). If folks want to move to one of these titles, or if there is a creative suggestion for an alternate title which would not fundamentally alter the meaning of this article as some previous suggestions would have, then I am all for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. - Merzbow 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, though I assume this is what Tom is trying to do, that we should come to some form of consensus before any page move happens, unlike, apparently, earlier page moves. Not that everyone will agree obviously, but let's be sure to let everyone who wants to weigh in and, if we are going to move it, let's determine which specific wording we want to use (I think "alleged" might actually be better, for example). Obviously just because earlier moves were done without discussion does not mean we should repeat that mistake.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for a vote to restore the title. I am asking on what basis it is being kept at the current title, since there was no consensus to move it here. Tom Harrison 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I did not see Tom's edit of his comment before I posted that last note. I disagree with Tom and do think it's better to talk this out and come to some consensus (which I think will be for a page move) rather than moving this unilaterally (even if it was moved without consensus before, I don't know whether that is true or not or what the lengthy move history of this page is). If we can come to a bit if agreement I think it would help us move forward on the article generally if a number of editors can agree on a change together. Still I'll try to answer his question. I think the main argument/justification for this title is that it is common to use a straightforward title even if a topic is controversial, i.e. rather than titling this "allegations of" the article should simply make it clear that the idea that there is something called "state terrorism by the United States" is highly contested and by no means an established fact. For example we have an article called Resurrection appearances of Jesus rather than Alleged Resurrection appearances of Jesus, even though obviously there are only "allegations" (though that's kind of a weird way to say it) that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and obviously it is very controversial. That's my view on it, though others may articulate a stronger rationale, as keeping this title as opposed to moving it to alleged or allegations of is not crucial for me. Also obviously there is some precedence for the latter formulations, such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I support a move to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" per above and precedent. AgentFade2Black 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, there never was any consensus. The only way the radicals get their way here is by edit warring (for which three have recently been blocked for 3RR) or by using multiple IP's and sock accounts. That is why we need to figure out a new title, that is if the article isn't renominated for deletion since it is now obvious that Travb canvassed for keep votes which makes the last Afd null and void.--MONGO 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD would obviously fail (the previous one was commented upon by dozens of editors, most of whom were not canvassed) so I do hope that strategy is not pursued. The closing admin specifically noted that "AfD is and has shown not to be the solution." MONGO, which name change would you be interested in? That's what we're discussing in this section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, we are discussing the justification for the name change made by Travb and his sock account. There wasn't any. I'll try to come up with a name change suggesting and am considering different ones now.--MONGO 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Move back to "allegations..." please. Arkon 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

move. The title without "allegations" is just too POV.--Sefringle 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, it really would not bother me to change the title, but I did respond to Tom's question as to an argument for why this title is appropriate, and perhaps others will as well. Rather than simply "undoing" a name change that happened some time back (even if it was against consensus) I think we should come to some agreement about what the name of this article should be. Think of this article as having "no title" at this point and we are trying to figure out what the title will be right here right now. I think most folks will weigh in in favor of "allegations of..." (that's the direction of the current comments) but other options might emerge. We don't have to rush this, let's give people a chance to weigh in and try to come to a conclusion in the next day or two. I think we can work together on this and therefore should really make an effort to do so--this is my main point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to moving to "Allegations of" as such but I object to such a move as it avoids the current requirement of unambiguous claims. The article can legitimately be easily expanded to many times it's current size if we include allegations as well as what is currently included. Such a title also makes most opposing views irrelevant. Those editors opposing claims now would not have a leg to stand on when argueing for exclusion of material. Wayne 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, what is currently included is little more than opinions, not facts. The problem with this article is that until the radical POV is removed from here, it is an egregious violation of multiple policies.--MONGO 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

looks like there is consensus to move the page.--Sefringle 04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. Is "Allegations of" better than "Alleged?" I know the former is the old title, but the latter strikes me as more succinct. Whatever people prefer is fine with me. And I think Wayne makes a good point above, i.e. we should agree that if we change the title to "allegations," this does not lower the bar for inclusion of material. I think there's still obviously disagreement about what can be included and what cannot, but the point is that any old "allegation" cannot be thrown in there--they have to come from notable sources at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's unanimous support for this, I'll go ahead and move it. Someone else has to do it later, CSD's really backed up now. east.718 08:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise, I missed this discussion. If this is truly the consensus I'll move it back, even though I personally think (and have said so several times) that this is a lousy title. --John 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the current title, but I do think editors clearly favor the "allegations of" title and therefore we should move it there. This thread has been around for a few days so I think people have had time to comment if they want to, and the consensus seems to be for a move.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for the move to 'State terrorism by...' and it does need to go back to Allegations of...' Tom Harrison 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh you selectively forget the sorid history of this page. There has never been consensus to do anything. We had a straw poll on this (which has been archived), and no one agreed on the title. MONGO, who supports this move, clearly states that he simply wants to delete this page. I never canvassed at all in the last AFD. Ask Morton about the rules about canvassing. He ws once blocked then unblocked for what I did. I simply let other know about the latest AfD by the group of deletionist here, who will never, ever stop until this page is deleted, becuase it does not match their own POVs. Divestment 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Current dispute

UltraMarine added back contested material from the Anti-Chomsky reader, again. This has been discussed at length, and its addition is opposed by several editors. I reverted it. However, Mongo has restored it under the rational that rebutting POV arguments is required for NPOV. Yes, I agree. However, he may not be arware of the reason why it was removed, and the extesive discussion about why it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong because it DOES NOT reubutt any arguments. It only attacks Chomsky. It does not even belong in the sections its being put under.

It does not follow logically to included material just to attack the author, instead of the relevant question/POV/claim that the author is making. It does not present a rubuttal to POV, and thus does not create NPOV. That is why the additions of Ultramarin to bash Chomsky, such as Chomky's "ethical predisposition",, or that "Chomky is no pacifist,' under the topic of "the US own definition," of terrorism is not valid, is off topic, irrelevant, and has been opposed. To be clear, Mongo's reasoning is correct-- disagreement about the authors claims, i.e. which the author is being cited for are valid to include per NPOV--however, Ultramarine's off topic anti-Chomsky reader additions have to go, as it does not do this in any way. I suggest, Mongo, that you consider this and revert yourself, to respect consensus, and this point. If we find counter POV about Chomsky's claims, on topic, then that would be prefectly fine to add.Giovanni33 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unproductive for you to just edit by reverting. You are an experienced editor. If you start trying to do 'your three reverts every day" you know where that will lead. Try to work with others and incorporate what you want with what they want. Tom Harrison 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of this stuff can stay, but it does need to be culled down a bit. Some things simply go off topic, for example the fact that Chomsky is not a pacifist is simply not pertinent (it would be akin to saying, for example, since you are not a pacifist, your condemnation of Al Qaeda is irrelevant) and the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff is way, way off-topic. The Windschuttle stuff should be cut down quite a bit but the basic points preserved. The Sam Harris quote is interesting, but I wonder if the context is appropriate? I don't have this book, so I'm wondering if the editor who introduced this material (I think it was Ultramarine) can briefly describe the context in which Harris was speaking of Chomsky? Specifically, when he refers to "Chomsky's account" what account is he referring to? I also am not exactly clear on how this fits into this article. Chomsky, and others, are clearly arguing that at times the US fully intended for its policies to terrify civilians, which seems different to me than what Harris is talking about (I'm wondering if he's referring Chomsky's take on the US bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Chomsky viewed as a horrendous murderous act even though bombing it was essentially a mistake--we don't have a discussion of that here so it might be a bit off topic). If the Harris source can be clarified a bit and really is relevant I think it could be included here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the nations only domestic manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, what sort of an effect do you suppose destroying it would have? Werner Daum & Near East Foundation estimate the attack "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians. LamontCranston 5:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no official defintion of these terms, we can only discuss how individuals make up their own definitions and then make claims that certain acts pass their own defintions. This discussion should certainly also include criticisms regarding how these individuals use or do not use these terms. So that Chomsky argues that some forms of terrorism are acceptable or that he argues that intentions do not matter is certainly part of the discussion of Chomsky's personal definition of terrorism and the claims he makes regarding which acts have passed his own definition.Ultramarine 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, but would you agree that the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff etc. is unnecessary and off topic, and if it was you who added in the Harris quote can you quickly describe the context for it? I'm not convinced that it's fully relevant to this article, but if I knew the context in which Harris was criticizing Chomsky maybe the relevance would become more clear.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the book at the moment but the quote is quite clear. Harris accuses Chomsky of taking no consideration of intentions in his accusations. Regarding the Philippines/Vietnam comparison, that is part of the discussion of Chomsky's claims that some forms of terror are acceptable. It there is anything regarding the Philippines that should be removed, it the personal and OE essay in Philippines section.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the immediately relevant Windschuttle material a bit from its currently massively abbreviated version, but not as much as it was earlier. I personally don't think the "pacifist" quote and the Harris quote are necessary. - Merzbow 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, they show what Chomsky personal definition is and how he uses it.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt even talk about a definition of terrorism. It attacks Chomsky for consistency, not taking into account "intentions" (as is alleged by the critic), and makes other claims about Chomsky---all off topic. Adding it amounts to endorsing an ad hominen fallacy. I know you disagree, but no one else agrees with you about this, and we've gone around and around already about it. Stop adding it against consensus.Giovanni33 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The pacifist quote clearly does not fit, it's just not relevant whether Chomsky is a pacifist or not. I could see the Harris quote being appropriate, but at the very least it was not worked in properly and the context is still unclear. I'm really not trying to be picky here, but the Harris material seems to be about a separate issue--saying Chomsky is wrong to equate unintentional casualties with intentional terrorist acts--which we do not really cover here. We are using Chomsky for his comments on Nicaragua v. United States, which involved actions on the part of the US which were quite intentional, and for his general comments about the US being "a leading terrorist state," particularly when US definitions of terrorism are applied. Thus material calling Chomsky hypocritical for labeling US actions state terrorism but not the actions of other states (the Windschuttle stuff) is clearly relevant (as would be material arguing with his characterization of Nicaragua v. US, some of which has been included from the anti-Chomsky reader). I understand Ultramarine does not have the book on hand, but I'm still unclear as to what Harris is referring to when he talks about "Chomsky's account" (Chomsky has written or spoken 30 different accounts on practically every foreign policy topic imaginable). I think it is important to clarify this. Quite frankly though, I think it should be easy to find other, far more relevant scholars than Harris (his field is quite different) who argue with Chomsky.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This material was added against consensus. At least until we come to agreement about what is appropriate, it should be removed.Giovanni33 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)I agree. I'll take a look and fix

Unfortunately you removed all of it. I added back my abbreviated version of the Chomsky material, which includes the portion that has achieved wide support. The other two non-Chomsky bits you removed were appropriately sourced and of proper length, and relevant; there was no reason to delete them, so I restored them. - Merzbow 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Why are we using Michel Chossudovsky and youtube videos as sources? Tom Harrison 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This ties into the issue of what qualifies as a reliable source here and what doesn't. Certainly many of the cites some people are endlessly trying to push into the lead and elsewhere don't qualify under even the most liberal reading of policy and guideline (see Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_10#Unreliable_sources for more this. Above in a recent conversation with Bigtimepeace (who appears to be receptive on principle to cleaning up some of the sourcing) I said that "I think the criteria should be that either the writer have significant and relevant academic credentials, or the publisher be very notable (either a book by a press with major distribution, or an article in a major periodical or academic journal, or an unsigned article by a very notable group like Amnesty)". Random unsigned articles by minor NGOs, articles by priests, articles on foreign policy by professors working in a completely different field who have only self-published on the subject, articles by activists with no credentials in activist magazines, etc. should all be disallowed. - Merzbow 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At the least, sources number 5, 8, 12, 14, and 15 in this version should go immediately. east.718 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I certainly agree on those. Referring to that same version, what about 1 (unsigned article by non-notable rights group), 6 (article by a priest on a Catholic news site), 10 (unsigned article by non-notable French activist group), 13 (blog by one Richard Heinberg, an expert on oil depletion), 19 (article by a non-notable human-rights group), and 20 (Chossudovsky article, noted 9/11 conspiracy-pusher whose foreign-policy work is completely self-published it seems). - Merzbow 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance I don't see a problem with removal of the sources east718 listed (twenty sources for the opening is just not necessary). The Chossudovsky source could probably safely be deleted as well, though he actually has a fair amount of respect and credibility and I think would qualify as a notable source. He obviously seems to have latched onto/propagated some of the 9/11 conspiracy junk, but I remember being aware of him prior to 9/11. It would really depend on what he said, and obviously the fact that he propagates 9/11 conspiracy theories would have to be pointed out. Easiest is probably to remove the source.

Merzbow and I had discussed the sourcing issues above and I basically fully agree with his criteria for what is and is not a good source as he describes above. A couple of minor clarifications/additions which I would not think would be too controversial: 1) "Relevant academic credentials" for an author should, I think, not mean they must necessarily hold a university position, one could have the relevant credentials if they worked as an expert or lead researcher in the relevant topic area for a major NGO like Human Rights Watch, or if they worked for a respected think tank (basically a think tank that actually gets frequently quoted and cited by others). 2) One other source which I think should be valid would be articles in newspapers or mainstream journals/magazines which detail the views of various experts on the topic. For example if a New York Times article from the 1980s said "Leading Academics Accuse US of State Terrorism in Nicaragua" (I'm making this up obviously) and then went on to quote the views of various experts who held this view, I think that would obviously be fine as a source. Otherwise I think Merzbow lays it out well (let me know if anyone has a problem with the two points I've made here) and I think it's good for us to try to get on the same page like this as to what sources are valid and which are not. I'm still in favor of cleaning out those sources which are poor in quality and replacing them with better sources, or deleting the material if other sources cannot be found. Obviously I think we should discuss these changes as we go, hopefully using the above criteria as a guide.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add those sources, they were there before. I merely turned links without names into proper cites. Merzbow, I agree with your second comment too, except for #19 which I consider notable, and #1, which doesn't match your description (not that I oppose it's removal though). east.718 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Merzbow's proposed deleted sources, source 1 actually details the views of prominent British MP George Galloway and I think it's certainly appropriate for this article, 6 (the priest) can go, 10 I cannot say as I don't know if this French group is notable or not, 13 could be removed, 19 seems on the cusp of notability and probably qualifies, I don't know enough to say, and 20 could probably be deleted, though as I said Chossudovsky probably does qualify as a notable source.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I misspoke on #1, which I agree is notable; I meant to point out #3, which doesn't seem to be by a notable group. - Merzbow 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be convinced of 19 (and 3) if someone can show why these groups are notable in the way that Amnesty, etc. are notable. (Neither seem to have Misplaced Pages articles, which is usually a good indicator). I think the standard for notability for articles by independent organizations (where the article author is unspecified or not notable in and of himself) should be high; they are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked publications, they don't hold academic degrees. - Merzbow 03:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Number three could definitely go, 19 I'm not sure. We could probably do a Nexis search to see if that group has been quoted much in news stories, if not they would definitely not be notable. I can't open the PDF file for some reason and thus don't even know why this source was put there--if it's for a trivial reason it's probably not necessary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No disagreements here. Here's the publication in HTML; I found one mentioning Redress on EBSCO: The 1999-2000 presidential elections in Chile by Hughes and Parsons in Electoral Studies. Lexis turned up nothing, but ProQuest National Newspapers dug up over 800 articles, which I'm not looking through. east.718 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the notability of Redress (which still doesn't seem notable, I'm not sure what you're searching on, but "redress" is a common word in English; a search for "redress.org" at findarticles.com turns up nothing), I don't see where in that very large report they accuse the US of state terrorism or of funding terrorist groups. Can anyone point out the specific page? - Merzbow 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've killed the links whose removal seems noncontroversial. east.718 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been good, thanks. But, I think it may be a little too soon to remove those sources. I'd let other editors get a chance to comment, and I will review them, as well by tomorrow.Giovanni33 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes by accident, restored them and removed a section that had serious POV issues and had never been discussed here.--MONGO 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing a lot of reverting. Note that you are currently at least at three reverts. The section you removed, seemed fine to me and was sourced. What is your objection, specifically? Also, your edit summaries are not accurate. The version you reverted to was NOT the consensus version, as evidenced by the introduction alone.Giovanni33 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As have you Giovanni33. The version I reverted to was no less a consensus as the one you have been reverting to.--MONGO 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks East718, looks good to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we are approaching consensus on these links. Note that these links aren't just present in the intro, many are also later in the article. My inclination is to give it until tomorrow afternoon for further comments and then remove the agreed-upon links. - Merzbow 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I suggested (to MONGO at least) that we clean up the references before debating them. Just in the first ten references I did, none of them had titles, one was an Amazon link instead of a cite, etc. Several sources are repeated instead of using the name="foo" format; identifying and discussing the text sourced to these would be easier then. east.718 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link clean up actually helps a lot (thanks 718) because it's easier to determine the source at a glance. Giovanni and perhaps others want a bit more time to look at these, but I agree there is basic agreement about removing the above discussed intro links. This process will probably prove to be a bit easier for the intro than for links later in the article, since links in the body will be sources for very substantive points (whereas whether it's 20 or 10 links in the intro is not that important). I think if the validity of a source/link in the body is challenged, as it will be, and if it is the sole source for a substantive point, a bit of time (not a lot) should be given to find a better source before simply deleting article text. If a claim in the article text is poorly sourced, and if an alternative source cannot be found, then obviously we should delete the claim in the article. I think this is the way to proceed. It will take longer, but I think it will allow us to greatly improve this article and minimize these highly destructive edit wars.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll only remove these cites later in the article if they are redundant (IIRC many, if not all were), and those that aren't, I'll put a fact-tag next to them to give time for replacement. - Merzbow 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the sources that were proposed for deltion, and then restored, here: I appreciate you giving other editors more time to look at them and comment. I would be ok with the ones you deleted, except these two: Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? by Richard Heinberg, and http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html, History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890, by Prof. Grossman. They both are examples that present the POV that the US is guilty of acts of state terrorism. However, I'm open to hear the reasons why these should also be removed, and will, ofcourse, abide by consensus on the question. All the others you had removed, I'm ok with removing them, speaking for myself only. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Heinberg cite is that it's from his blog, which triggers the WP:V requirement that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." He seems to be an expert on oil and ecology, not foreign policy, plus I can't find evidence his foreign policy work has been published in reliable publications. As for the Grossman cite, it doesn't qualify for the same reasons - it's a self-published work by a geography professor, and I can't find evidence his opinions on foreign policy have been published in reliable publications. - Merzbow 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I removed them. Looking more closely though, this source, which initially seemed nonsensical to me, links to a lot of US-published information that we can use—perhaps on a future section on Chile. I'll give those reports a once-over and come back here. east.718 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely comfortable with the removal of the Heinberg and Grossman sources for the reasons mentioned by Merzbow.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism and Propaganda

This section is giving way too much weight to a single source, Richard Falk, almost an entire page. This can easily be compressed to 1/3 of its length. - Merzbow 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. We should keep the section, but syncopate Falk's opinion and bring in other sources. east.718 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhpas it can be trimmed down a bit, or add other sources to balance. Lets wait for the editor who put it there to comment. I dont want another round of edit waring. But can someone please restore the consensus/long term introduction? The current one is terrible, barely coherent, and POV. D. Horowitz is not a reliable source, using terms like "Chomsky cult" is lunancy and insulting (very fringe POV), and the details of the US vs. Nicar. are likewise charactertured by the same source. Please restore the previous version and lets work out an appropriate balanced intro.Giovanni33 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Merzbow. Falk is exactly the kind of source we want in this article (I don't think there is anyone who would argue that he fails WP:RS), but the material drawing on him should be much shorter. There are some very useful passages, but I'm not even sure if a section called "State terrorism and propaganda" is warranted. Not everything quoted from Falk relates to this issue, so perhaps the section could be retitled or, more likely, pieces of this could be incorporated in other sections. The sentence, "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" might actually go well in the intro (a specific quote from a notable author, other than Chomsky, would be useful there). That would actually be an interesting topic to explore, but I think only if Falk has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism, and preferably if others have talked about this as well. I also think some of Falk's discussion of terrorism by state vs. non-state actors (and how the US basically does not recognize the former) could go in one of the previous two sections, though those might have to be tweaked a bit in order to do so. Props to the editor who found this material, but we do need to slim it down and perhaps chop it up and disperse it in a couple of different sections. Perhaps different editors can make a few stabs at that, including BernardL who added this originally.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points and lots of good material, that even if trimmed down can go into other sections. I will add about Hiroshima dn Nagasaki, that its not only Falk, Chomsky, Parenti, but a whole host of other reputable scholars have given the opinon that the nuclear bombing of Japan were acts of state terror, albeit, in the context of war, but this is a notable pov. I've argued for a section on reporting this, and have supplied numerous sources to prove my point. The editors declinded to add this because it was in the context of a war, and state terrorism are actions that generally occur outside it.Giovanni33 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you editors believe that continuing to make this article more POV will somehow diminish the reason there is a NPOV dispute on this page?--MONGO 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reporting all relevant POV's does not make it more POV, it makes it more comprehensive, and is in keeping with NPOV. There is no such thing as a pov that is NPOV. Nuetrality is acheived by reporting on what various sourses say, from all POV's. We are talking about adding more POV's, which is a good thing in this direction.Giovanni33 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with MONGO's comment, reply is to Giovanni) Right, and that's an important POV regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would obviously have to be represented in a strong fashion if we want to have a section like that (i.e. it's war and therefore cannot be state terrorism) but of course Falk and others would presumably argue that dropping an atom bomb on a civilian population, knowing full well that it will cause mass death, and indeed actually counting on that as a means to terrify the citizens and their leaders, is a form of state terrorism. I don't even know if I agree with Falk about that, but certainly it's a view worth discussing so long as the opposing view is discussed (I might be able to help find sources for the "it's not state terrorism" view actually). Giovanni, if you are going to work on a section like that I would suggest sticking it on the talk page first so we can discuss and revise it before possibly moving it into the article. Obviously it will be quite controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree and will work on such a section. I also note that while its true that acts of state terrorism do generally occurre outside a context of war, it doesnt make there are not some notable exceptions where it occurs within it. This is a case in point. And that we hare notable scholars who argue exactly that, can be reported on. I am all for balancing it with all POV, relevant to the issue.Giovanni33 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And to MONGO, I don't see why a section on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have to make the article more POV, so long as there truly are multiple reliable sources who take the view that Falk does on the question, and so long as their view is strongly balanced by the perspective that dropping the a-bombs was not state terrorism (indeed, as many historians argue, was a good thing). If it is a one-sided section with Falk and his ilk as the only sources then obviously it would be unacceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I assumed you wouldn't. Too bad the U.S. didn't have the bombs a year earlier...we could have ended that war long sooner. Someone explain how you contend that adding more POV and deleting efforts to get this article to be more NPOV, as was done here by an anonymous IP , is making this article meet our policies better.--MONGO 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

May have something to do with that ad hominem issue. You know attacking the person, not the arguments we discussed a few sections up and found to be inappropriate. --SixOfDiamonds 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section the anon removed, that you left the dif for, is of a ad hominem on Chomsky. The complaints are not based on the definition presented ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, so Chomsky is to be taken as a de facto expert and no evidence to show that his work is biased is allowed? That sounds like efforts to refute the misleading innuendo in this article (in an effort to get this thing to be NPOV) will be removed by anonymous editors who have made nary a single contribution to the talkpage. Or maybe they have...seems a lot of IP's revert back to the US=evil empire tenant.--MONGO 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I am not really sure what you are talking about, you just agreed it was an ad hominem and that it shouldn't be done. Now you are saying that it is ok? No of course its not allowed on a page that is not about Chomsky to argue if Chomsky is biased, however direct criticism to the section is permitted, such as a critique of the definition he is being cited for. This was discussed above, you may want to continue in its relevant section. --SixOfDiamonds 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to nothing. The edit done by the anon IP removed accurate and cited material which did critique the neutrality of those who were cited as having the opinions that the U.S. has engaged in state sponsorship of terrorism.--MONGO 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. I said it was an ad hominem, you said: "Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" I took this to mean they shouldn't have had put that ad hominem. For a comparison, would you find it ok to put critiques of Horowitz then under the Horowitz critique of Chomsky? Even better the passage was sources to the Anti-Chomsky reader, surely that fails WP:RS. --SixOfDiamonds 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that that the POV/"Chomsky cult," "police states,' introduction has been restored, again. I would like to point out that there was no consensus for this version. The anon IP restored what was the long standing version that had the most consensus--worked on by many editors--- before the article was protected, right after the POV additions were added by UltraMarine. The intro that has been restored, just now, is part of those major and contested additions made to the article by UltraMarine-- against consensus, just before the article was protected. All of these additions have already been fixed, except for that introduction, which was just restored, mistakenly I believe, based on a belief that the anon IP was acting out of consensus. He wasn't in this case. The previous introduction should thus be restored, as there is no consensus to use David Horowitz POV claims, as a realiable source.Giovanni33 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Giovanni33, I appreciate your speaking up. Tom Harrison 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --SixOfDiamonds 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I only meant to cull the sources but accidentally got the second half of the intro too. east.718 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you did good. You restored relevent critique of the POV of Chomsky et al, and restored a more neutral tone to the article.--MONGO 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-reverted myself before I read that; do with the second half of the intro what you want but don't do a blind revert as I fixed up all of the lead's sources and removed a couple which aren't reliable—namely an oil depletion expert's and an economics professor's blogs. east.718 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, East718. You've been the best, most productive editor for this article. I'm sure editors on both sides of the fence are thankful for the much needed, and moderating presence you've had here.Giovanni33 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need more editors like you here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. east.718 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for semi-protection. The IP edits are becoming disruptive. - Merzbow 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Declined, ill-advisedly in my opinion. If the IP edits continue and some admin thinks to fully-protect this, don't. (The last admin to fully-protect over an IP-fueled edit war wouldn't even deign to respond to my query on their talk page). - Merzbow 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection would have been useful, full protection would definitely be a bad idea since we are making some progress.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added back the sourced information. Remember WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. I have made some changes to the text to clarify the relevance.Ultramarine 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't think this quote is correct, or correctly cited: "To Plan and conduct covert operations which are conducted or sponsored by this government..." under the section (tendentiously titled) "Application of the United States government's own definitions". Tom Harrison 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objection to compressing the Falk material in principle, I gave it a shot. Mostly the quotes were trimmed, his main points are preserved. - Merzbow 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a revised introduction

Okay, I have a proposal for a new intro which needs to be worked on more, but I wanted to put what I have so far out there (I'm not at all wild about the specific wording at points, but I think you'll get the drift). The intro has been the victim of a lot of reversions, and I think it would be good for us to get that straight. Right now there is no criticism of Chomsky's position on Nicaragua v. United States in the intro (actually Ultramarine appears to have added it back, but I have a different version) and I think there obviously should be. I've also added some new stuff. Here it is, and I'll try to explain what I was trying to do and what I think is missing after the proposed text. The first two sentences are the same (including sources) though I have removed some italics which seemed unnecessary.

The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others. Linguist and U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky argues that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of international terrorism based on the verdict by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States, which condemned the United States federal government not for terrorism per se, but for its "unlawful use of force". Critics of Chomsky's position on the ICJ ruling respond that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the ICJ has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree. In this case the U.S. government "strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy."

In the post 9-11 era, but also earlier during the Cold War, critics have argued that the U.S. government has exhibited a "double-standard" with respect to terrorism which has eroded its credibility (one recent example being the case of Luis Posada Carriles). Toward the end of the Cold War, Princeton professor Richard Falk accused the U.S. and other First World countries of associating terrorism "exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" while concealing their own reliance on terrorist methods. Writing during Ronald Reagan's presidency, Falk pointed out what he deemed the "hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale."

In order to put this together, I've obviously cannibalized some of the material from the section "State terrorism and propaganda" which is based solely on Richard Falk. I think that's okay because that section needs to be slimmed down if not deleted, but some of Falk's thoughts should be included at various points in the article as he is an excellent source. What's missing in the second paragraph is a response to the positions articulated. A brief counterpoint to the arguments about Carriles would be useful. More important is a response to Falk, which could happen in any number of ways, but should probably come from a source speaking specifically of how the US comported itself during the Cold War. I would particularly like to hear suggestions on what we could put here.

In case you could not tell, I tend to think of issues like "state terrorism" from a historical vantage point, and I think the article could benefit from that kind of approach. I think the Cold War should be specifically mentioned in the introduction. Many of the key allegations in this article relate to the Cold War era, and I think we should consider structuring this article in a chronological fashion perhaps like this: 1) Pre-Cold War (if we have anything there, right now we don't) 2) Cold War 3) Post-Cold War and (possibly) 4) Post-9/11. If we frame many of these events in terms of the Cold War, I think it will quite frankly make it easier to put in sources objecting to those who accuse the US of state terrorism. Many who object to such accusations point out the threat of international communism and the "state terrorism" of the Soviet Union as key contexts when considering US actions in, for example, Guatemala or Western Europe. Arguments along these lines have already been added or proposed for addition. I think it will be easier to express them if we have one broad section about the Cold War, including a section intro which sets up the general debate. It's possible some of the Falk stuff I've added to my proposed intro would go better there.

Anyhow, enough (too much?) said. I welcome comments on this proposed intro and also additions, changes, etc. Even if folks do not like this proposal or want to alter it radically I think it would be advisable for us to try to come to agreement on an intro, and to think of the introduction as a quick preview of the arguments to come, which it currently is not. This might help us to re-organize the rest of the article, something which is also needed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube videos? Tom Harrison 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentions none of the controversies regarding the concept of state terrorism. That anyone can make up a definition and then claim some acts pass this personal definition should be mentioned. For other arguments, see User:Ultramarine/Sandbox.Ultramarine 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You Tube videos can obviously be removed, they were there before in the section of the intro that I did not change. These seem to reference programs on the CBC, so presumably we could just cite the show, date, and time and remove the You Tube links (I don't know how citation of television programs works, but I assume that's it). We can go ahead and deal with the You Tube links right now since they are in the current intro.

Ultramarine I'm fine with a quick sentence in the intro saying that the term state terrorism section is controversial, maybe even incorporating it into the lead sentence, though I don't know if it's really necessary since the first section after the intro describes the controversy and offers different definitions. Perhaps in that (second) section we could include language that explains that, because there is no agreed upon definition, various commentators have deemed certain actions "state terrorism" based on a variety of definitions or no real definition at all. That might be a good lead to the rest of the article, but I don't know if it would go as well in the intro. I'm wondering though how you feel about the rest of it, particularly the way I dealt with countering Chomsky's assertion about the ICJ (using some of the anti-Chomsky reader material) since I know you were concerned to have this included.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is being said is best cited to a published transcript of the show, or less usefully to the show itself. Nobody should record what he sees on a youtube video of unknown provenance and then say he got it from the what the video itself claims to be. There is also a potential problem with linking to copyright-infringing material. Tom Harrison 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't find a public transcript. east.718 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to find an intro that would be acceptable to all. I think we will all need to compromise, here. I am fine with adding in "not terrorism per se but "unlawful force." I am opposed to using Horowitz because he is an unreliable source. We should stick to the best, most serious sources for critical responses, and Horowitz is worse than quoting, say, Bill O'Reilley. Horowtiz is not important enough to be given that kind of undue weight in the intro to report what he says. Plus what he says is not even accurate, factually, and his reasoning is embarrassingly fallacious (for instance, "unlawful force is not another word for terrorism"--who said it was?! Red herring. He is just a bad source to rely on, and this undermines the critic’s response to the Chomsky POV.

On the other hand, using Morrison from the law journal is perfectly fine, stating, "In this case the U.S. government "strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy." That’s fine (and thus we don't need to say the same thing twice. Stick with this reliable source). However, I'd add in a footnote here for the bottom, in the manner that this academic paper does on the topic. See footnote #56 in this paper (which is a very balanced account, and can be used to further document the US govt's counter arguments), . The footnote in question explains: "The US accepted the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua. The US was in "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another sate" and was ordered to pay reparations, though it never did, cf. Nicaragua v. United States.” The reason these details should be in a footnote is because the article should be about State Terrorism, not legal jurisdiction issues of the ICJ. That belongs on the article on the subject, which this article links to. But, since we need to mention, per NPOV, that the US disputed the court's jurisdiction, the footnote is warranted.

The second paragraph, I'm fine with, although I think it can be trimmed down a bit. We went the intro to be concise, and not bloated. The issue about the definition being controversial has its own section--the very first section. In fact, even a second section on the US definition. It does not need to be in the intro, too. That is pov pushing, in my view, to state the same thing multiple times. Utube videos are just another medium; it’s the content of the videos that determines their suitability. If these are videos of actual interviews of notable people talking about the subjects, then using it as a source (TV journalism) is as perfectly fine as using print journalism as a medium, provided its properly attributed to a legitimate interview with rights to be linked here. I know that Democracy Now, does allow this. And, if we get it directly from Democracy NOW, they do include a transcript, as well.Giovanni33 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Horowitz is a great source either--I would put him above O'Reilly though--but I think he is acceptable for the time being. Ideally we would find a better person to contest Chomsky's point that the ruling in Nicaragua v. US meant the US committed state terrorism (in other words I think the Morrison source is not sufficient by itself--there should be a straight forward counterpoint to Chomsky in the intro I think). I'd support leaving Horowitz there for now and looking for something better, given that we're in that same position with a good number of sources in the article.

I also wonder if folks might comment on the idea of organizing this article in a more chronological fashion, and with reference to the Cold War in certain sections. As I said above, the quotes from Falk in the second paragraph might actually work better in a general section on US "state terror" during the Cold War.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz is on the edge, I suppose... see my latest Sources section below, I think the decision to allow or not allow him ties into the decision to allow or not allow a few other sources of similar notability. - Merzbow 06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz's is not a reliable source. He is notable as an activist, yes, but not an expert on this subject that we can rely upon to give a counter voice to someone like Chomsky. He just attacks Chomsky. His reporting on the ICJ case, is not even accurate. If we went to report his personal views about this, then at least it doesn't belong right in the introduction of this article, and we would need more than just him as a source (to show that what he says is even shared by anyone else--and thus even notable enough to report on). Otherwise, sticking what Horowitz says right in the intro is just embarressing, esp. with the kind of extreme POV insulting language he typically uses. As I said, this is not just for WP standards, but in fairness to the other side of the argumement, which looks very bad if its just Horowitz blabbing his usual invective about police states and Chomsky cults.Giovanni33 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion below, Horowitz is equally as notable as Bovard and other liberal sources in this article. Standards must be applied equally. (And I see nothing about "Chomsky cults" in the Horowitz excerpt being used.) - Merzbow 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed introduction a major problem I see is that it does not include direct violence perpetrated by the U.S. usually in the form of air power or special forces which means it is omitting important aspects of the charges made in the relevant literature. Another problem is that in raising the Nicaragua/ICJ issue the way it does it goes into too much detail for an introductory paragraph. The Nicaragua/ICj issue is a complex controversy best left to the main body of the text. According to the literature it is by no means the defining example of U.S. state terrorism anyway. I think an introduction should briefly point to what American state terrorism is about (ie: an element in an alternative approach to discussing terrorism}, indicate that it is a controversial concept, and lay out the structure of the article. I would like to make a tentative suggestion for an outline tomorrow. I do like the idea of having at least three sections devoted to history, alongside sections dealing with defintional issues and propaganda, with room for expansion.BernardL 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the various definitions of terrorism should be included early on so people know what is being discussed when applying these standards to what the United States has done: the calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to coerce and intimidate civilian populations or governments through instilling fear LamontCranston 6:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism and Propaganda 2

Personally I am in favour of a section on ideology/propaganda because in my experience of reading the relevant literature it is common among analysts to raise the role of ideology to the extent that it can probably be considered an essential part of the analysis. For example, in what is arguably the foundational book of analyses of state terrorism, Western State Terrorism, edited by Alexander George, the ideological apparatus obscuring understanding of terrorism is given extensive treatment in two essays. Edward Herman and Gerry O'Sullivan discuss the way government spokepersons, wide-circulation media, and pundits of the "terrorism industry", consisting of terrorism "experts", think tanks, research institutes and security firms, downplay the West's and particularly the U.S.'s role in spawning violence. Alexander George examines in depth what he refers to as "terrorology", the academic study of terrorism. It should come as no surprise that Chomsky spills considerable ink arguing that a propaganda apparatus and "intellectual priesthood" serve power interests by providing one-sided perspectives on the issue. Falk too places significant emphasis on the way he feels a propaganda apparatus impairs understanding. Moreover, he outlines the consequences of such distortions. For example he lambasted George Bush during the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan for a regressive narrowing the conception of terrorism to that of what he refers to as the "statist" conception in which, by definition, only non-state actors could be responsible for terrorism. At the time he noted that it "gave governments around the planet a green light to increase the level of violence directed at their longtime internal adversaries. Several important governments were glad to merge their struggle to stem movements of self-determination with the US war on global terror, and none more than Ariel Sharon's Israeli government." I see a propaganda section as a logical complement to sections that discuss the concept on 1. theoretical terms, dealing with definitions and 2. empirical terms, dealing with facts. Even when these analysts have arrived at a consistent defintion, they have felt the need to explain why the defintion is not widely accepted and also why the facts are not widely known- and that is exactly where the ideological apparatus comes into play. I'm okay with people trimming what I contributed, but nevertheless I feel there is a strong need for such a category and that the literature bears me out on this.BernardL 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also favor such a section as it goes to the heart of the controversy regarding the conception of State terrorism, and is in line with this article's offering differeing definitions. A discussion of the policial and ideological basis of the controversy over applying the term in an accepted legal international consensus among states is logical within the context and flow of this article, and in in keeping with much of the literature on the subject. Although, I think the point can be made with less words, and thus trimmed a bit, that is only a secondary concern provided its in its own section in the body of the article. I also think it should be looked at for POV issues to make sure its as nuetral and NPOV as it can be, i.e. incorporating those voices that illustrate the POV that State terrorism is not a valid concept (i.e. doesn't apply to States).Giovanni33 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, while Falk might have an opinion worth hearing, one wonders how credible it is when he has coauthored 9/11 conspiracy theory junk with the likes of David Ray Griffin and has made some statements that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians. Is the radical left traditionally anti-Semetic?--MONGO 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He suggests the occupations ultimate goal is obliteration of the Palestinian people (can't imagine why when we have Israel annexing all valuble land, Israeli statesmen declaring that Palestinians who chose to stay will live like dogs, 'acedemics' declaring that there really isn't even a Palestinian people so its okay to kick them out, and so on), Horowitz, and you, jump on this with the usual pejorative - that the mere accusation is anti-Semetic! LamontCranston 6:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joining the project

I consider myself an expert on U. S. State Terrorism since I wrote so wrote so many papers on it in college. Maybe I could put copies online, and we can use them for sources. I would like to add a section on the State Terrorism and program of genocide directed at the Native Americans by the USG.

Terrorism and the United States: A Pragmatic and Theoretical Approach.

3. Designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target –" Acts of terrorism not only affect the immediate target but they affect the public emotionally and psychologically as well. The USG has been known to employ such tactics in the past to get what it wants. In its early history such strategies were used on the Native American population of what is now the Continental United States. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States committed the USG to the “removal of the Indians” (Zinn 1995; 125). Under the guise of Manifest Destiny the USG set itself on a course to eradicate the land of ‘savages.’ Coined by John L. O’Sullivan the term Manifest Destiny became an instant battle cry for American expansion to the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1850s. In an editorial written for the New York Morning News O’Sullivan greatly advocated westward expansion and referred to the Spanish-Indian-American populations as a “mixed and confused blood” (Current 1965; 441), a sentiment that surely became bigoted justification for the eradication of those First Nations. The years 1838 and 1839, the period commonly referred to as the Trail of Tears, saw the worst of this mentality as there were multiple forced migrations of the indigenous populations. Every single peace or land treaty between the USG and the Native American populations was broken by the USG (Zinn 1995). These tactics were designed to have psychological impacts on the rest of the indigenous tribes." http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Bmedley Sutler 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WP. Thanks for that source. I feel this article should have a section on US state terrorism against American Indians. I know there is an article about the subject, but a small section here pointing to the main article makes sense to me. Also, I'd be interested in reading your papers if you post them online. While we could maybe use the references your paper may cite, in its claims, we wouldn't be able to use your papers directly for articles on WP, since that would constitute what is known as "original research" and that is not allowed. But, I am interested in reading your papers. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Another example of how to violate one of our policies - WP:SYNTH (Nothing against the the new user or his college papers - see WP:RS). The last time I checked, the Mayflower was not an American battleship that greeted the American Indians. Who was it who met the American Natives head on? Was it Europeans? The British had Thirteen Colonies. We need to start State terrorism by Europeans then. This POV playground can only go so far. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about State terrorism (or claims thereof) against the already established United States govt. against the native populations. This is big part of US history. The fact that you may need a US history lesson is further reason why a section about this should be in this article.Giovanni33 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on such major introductions for now, the article is in a pretty shabby state as is. The Guatemala section needs a rewrite anyway; let's improve the current article then worry about other allegations. east.718 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Giovanni33 - Perhaps you could use a current lesson about the modern day State terrorism by Mexico then. It all violates no original research. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can start an article on State Terrorism by American Colonists. I feel that this article should exclude the many acts of terror targeting the indiginous Americans that predate 04/07/76. Bmedley Sutler 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stick to international affairs, though arguably, the U.S. was only created after the lands that were controlled by the native aboriginal population were taken from them. However, for the scope of this article, I do think it should address U.S. international relationships. I do suggest that you could start an article on such matters, and there are a number of articles about various white---native wars relationships/wars/masscares, etc. which are linked from Indian wars...also check with the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to see if a similar article already exists or for further help.--MONGO 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We can put my suggestion on hold for now. Bmedley Sutler 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO here that this article should stick to US international relationships and his suggestions for thinking about starting a new article (particularly contacting the WikiProject) are good ones. Incidentally, I think an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" would be a bit problematic. For one thing, much of the stuff that went down between colonists and natives was not really state directed (though obviously some of it was) but rather more akin to private vigilantism. Perhaps more importantly, it is arguable that there was no such thing as a "nation-state" prior to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. If so key events like the Pequot War (1637) could not be included in an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" which would certainly complicate matters. Just food for thought.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism should most definately apply to domestic affairs, why wouldn't it? I think domestic state terrorism is/was a very common occurance in some cases throughout history (thinking USSR or color coded terror-alert warnings, what does that do other than cause domestic 'terror'...kidding). So why not mention it in this article? I do agree there are other things that should be focused on more immediately though.Wiegrajo 11:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For now we could add in the Native American articles about this related subject on the See Other links?Giovanni33 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a high priority, but what specifically did you have in mind?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Junglecat, did you see the references to Thomas Jefferson and the 1850s? He wasn't talking about the pre-revolution colonies or the Spanish or the British, he was talking about the United States. I think someone needs lessons in reading comprehension before lessons on any nations history. As for the Native Americans, I've previously voiced my support for some sort of 'domestic' or 'internal' section for crimes against the indigious population, the more recent COINTELPRO, and the like. LamontCranston 6:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources (part 2)

After the conclusion of the successful discussion above concentrating on unreliable sources in the lead, I've gone over the rest of the sources in the article and have concerns about the reliability of more of them. The following comments reference sources by number in this version of the article. (Please don't add comments inline in this post, instead discuss the sources by reference number in your subsequent posts). If we can clean these up (or can conclude that some are in fact notable), and agree to keep the quality of future sources in this article high, then my concerns about the article will be significantly allayed.

• (ref 9) Redress.org again... can editors review my above comments on this article, it doesn't seem to criticize the US for state terrorism or sponsoring terrorism, and redress.org doesn't appear to be a particularly notable organization.
• (ref 12) An activist called Stephen Gowans writing in a self-run blog called "What's Left". Clearly not acceptable.
• (ref 14) Article in Znet, which seems to be an activist webzine of little notability, by a Jeremy R. Hammond, a writer I can't find any information on. - was replaced with a superior source
• (ref 67, partial) An article by a Bill Vann on the minor World Socialist Web Site. Neither seem reliable enough to stand as a source for foreign policy opinion. - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 69) Article by Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group, neither of which appear notable for sensitive and careful work like translation and interpretation of documents. - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 71) Opinion article by writer James Bovard on a think-tank. If David Horowitz (re the Anti-Chomsky Reader discussion above) is disallowed, this guy certainly should be also. Conversely, if Horowitz is allowed, then this guy should be, they are of about equal notability. Comments? - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 93) Robert Parry seems to be a journalist of moderate notability, but he is publishing here on his own web-site, Consortium News. According to his Misplaced Pages article (Consortium News doesn't rate its own), "shortage of revenue forced him to continue it on a part-time basis". I don't think it qualifies.
• (ref 96) Article by a Palmer Legare on the web site of the Resource Center of the Americas. Neither appear notable.
• (ref 109) Article by a Felix Würsten in a weekly campus newspaper of some Swiss college? Can someone explain the notability here? - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 117) A list of figures from some guy's personal website on Erols.com. We should easily be able to find a replacement for this clearly unreliable source. - replaced source
• (ref 121) Opinion article by a Tom Allen on the website of a group called BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development). Group seems of borderline notability, Tom Allen seems of no notability. I don't think it qualifies.
• (ref 122) Opinion article by a Dabet Castañeda on the site of a Philippine activist zine call Bulatlat, "The Philippine's Alternative Weekly Online Newsmagazine". I can find no evidence of notability for either the author or zine.
• (ref 130) Opinion article by a notable liberal think tank. Again, if Horowitz/Bovard are allowed, this probably should be, if not, then not.
• (ref 131) Counterpunch article by Petras; we discussed and decided to disallow a similar Counterpunch/Petras article above.

- Merzbow 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

71 and 130 seem acceptable, along with Horowitz. 95 and 99 should be easy to replace with a reliable source that says the same. 111 needs to be removed pending a translation from a source that is more reliable than an online tool—or we could just leave the ref in Italian and get a native speaker here to help out. I'm taking a look at the rest now. east.718 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is great, and I think I lot of this will obviously have to be removed. I'll try to go through it more carefully and try to parse what should obviously be removed (separating sources which make an important claim and where an alternative source is therefore desirable, and sources which add little or nothing to the article and can therefore be removed out of hand); what is questionable; and what is probably worthy of being kept.

Just a couple of points though--Znet is certainly notable as a source as a whole (an enormous number of notable people on the left write their regularly, including Chomsky, but also many others) although Jeremy R. Hammond is probably not a notable author so that might not be a good source. Also the World Socialist Web Site (which, incidentally, can out-sectarian the most sectarian of sectarian leftist groups--no mean feat) is actually fairly notable and widely read and cited. It is the official organ of the International Committee of the Fourth International which may sound like a nonsense group but is actually a very notable Trotskyist organization with active chapters in multiple countries. They have even run candidates here in the US in places like Illinois and Michigan (if I remember correctly) and received a few thousand votes in local elections. Supposedly it's the "most widely read international socialist news source on the internet" (according to Alexa rankings) and it's published in 13 languages. I used to read that thing years ago and Bill Vann was one of their most senior contributors, so I think it would actually qualify as a source given it's status as a widely read organ of an (admittedly little known) international socialist party. I'll look closer at the rest of this stuff later. Thanks to Merzbow for putting this together.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll concur on the World Socialist Web Site, the IFCI is indeed notable (and I've always had a soft spot for Trotsky anyways). Znet does seem well-known on the Left, but like Counterpunch I don't think it can make up for a lack of notability for an article's author, and Hammond appears to have no relevant academic credentials. From here: "Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent researcher and writer currently residing in Taiwan, where his day job is working as an English teacher." Hmm. - Merzbow 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean we're like citing to Stone put to sky now, who has a 'remarkably' similar background? Oh yeah, fer sure, good reliable source. How about we just reprint the Worker's World Daily here on Wiki, and skip the middleman.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I mean who doesn't have a soft spot for Trotsky? Wait, actually I guess a lot of people. The information you supplied on Jeremy Hammon is, umm, interesting. Let's leave it there. I agree that footnote can be deleted, the Christian Science Monitor article on Venezuela can still back that sentence in the intro. Additionally we can add this article from Inter Press Service which the CSM article cited (the full citation is in footnote 18 in my proposed intro above). That article quotes various current and former US officials and a couple of experts as well as a Venezuelan official and accuses the US of a "double standard" with respect to terrorism which erodes its credibility (it's this source that caused me to change some of the wording in my proposed intro above). If it's okay I could put this source in and remove the other one. I think this particular sentence of the intro probably needs to be reworked, but we could at least improve the sourcing for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow wrote: "ref 69) Article by Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group, neither of which appear notable for sensitive and careful work like translation and interpretation of documents." LAWG not notable? You really should have checked your facts first. They are highly notable and highly respected. Your baseless claim which 3 minutes on Google disproves calls into question your impartiality, or abilities, and casts a clowd of doubt over your entire list. Bmedley Sutler 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post is suspicoiusly lacking in anything that might be called evidence for your claims. The need to demonstrate notability resides on those who wish to keep the source. I'll ignore the personal attacks for the moment, but if you continue with those you'll quickly find Misplaced Pages a very unwelcome place to be. You seem to be a very new user so a review of WP:NPA and other policies might be in order. - Merzbow 07:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, stay cool Bmedley, no need to call into question Merzbow's "impartiality or abilities." If you disagree with the rationale for one of the sources, simply say so and explain why--that's what we're doing in this section and several of us have discussed this. Merzbow is doing us a service by preparing the list, and would, I'm sure, be receptive to any argument you make for keeping a certain source, so long as you shy away from personal attacks. Some good collaboration has been going on here, so let's try to keep it that way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unwelcome? How so? User:Bequiled ignores NPA and CIVIL all the time. I don't see him getting into any trouble. Is that because he's a conservative? Thanks for the tip though, I'll read those policies. Bmedley Sutler 08:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, Beguiled was warned for personal attacks here, by that famous raging lefty MONGO no less! (I joke, obviously).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has he ever been blocked? For even 1 hour?Bmedley Sutler 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, but I don't think anyone here takes Beguiled seriously either, and if more attacks came the user probably would be blocked. Beguiled has not been around for a few days so it's not a problem right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Haugaard, Executive Director LAWG

"Lisa has been executive director of the Latin America Working Group since June 2002. From 1993 to 2001, she served as Senior Associate at the LAWG, where she worked on Colombia and Central America policy, development assistance and other topics. She has testified before the US Congress and produced numerous reports and articles on US-Latin America policy. Prior to her work at the LAWG, she was executive director of the Central America Historical Institute in Washington, DC and writer, editor and translator for the Jesuit Instituto Historico Centroamericano in Managua, Nicaragua. She has a BA from Swarthmore College, a Master’s degree in Latin American studies from New York University, and was a Fulbright scholar in Central America."

LAWG

The Latin America Working Group is a coalition of over sixty organizations dedicated to promoting US policies toward Latin America that support human rights, social and economic justice, and sustainable development. Many other non-coalition organizations participate in subgroups and steering committees on specific country issues. Organizations make decisions on a case-by-case basis regarding whether to endorse statements and participate in specific projects.

Her translation of the CIA torture manual is the reference standard. What I said was fact, not insult. He surely did not attempt to verify the notability and importance of either Lisa or LAWG, or he wouldn't have swung and missed so badly. Bmedley Sutler 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're right and the source is notable (you've provided a good rationale this time) you should always follow WP:CIVIL. Calling into question someone's "abilities" is definitely not civil, and definitely would be construed by some as an insult. You're a new editor which is great, and obviously no one expects you to be fully aware of Wiki's complicated policies, but trust me that the way you phrased your comment above was problematic. This is friendly and sympathetic advice.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. He denigrated the source and the notability, but he obviously didn't do a single web search on the person or the NGO that he claimed were not notable. Bmedley Sutler 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please delete the list of participating organizations above--it takes up space, you can just supply a link if you like. Merzbow was not denigrating a source in my opinion, rather just listing sources which looked questionable and providing a rationale. Again, the whole point is to discuss them, and if some sources are in fact notable we can keep them. This process was agreed to by several editors, my point to you is that you should refrain from any language that could be interpreted as a personal attack. I would drop this point if I were you and accept that you could have worded your reply to Merzbow better--it's really not a big deal so long as you recognize that and just move on. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Bmedley Sutler 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standards of notability are stronger than you might think. Lisa herself is not notable, she has no degree beyond a Master's and has held no academic positions (that I can see). And organizations cannot establish their own notability just by producing a laundry list of groups they are allegedly involved with in some manner, this is ripe for abuse. I do see link backs from pcausa.org, however, so that establishes some degree of external validation. But this group is clearly of far less notability than many (like Amnesty, for example). If you want it, I'm not going to fight, but then don't complain when a paper by some consultant at the Heritage Foundation is added by editors with a conservative bent (and there are many, many conservative think tanks and activist groups also). - Merzbow 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look and comment about these sources later when I have more time, but many of them listed above are valid. I don't share most of the characterizations that are being made about them, either, which quite frankly, indicate a suprising ignorance of these organizations and publications--which I'd hope anyone here would be well familiar with. I must say I am rather shocked that even some of the most notable publications like Znet, which has a large readership (in the tune of millions), is offered for deletion as a source on the basis that it "seems to be an activist webzine of little notability."?!?! Go to any bookstore and you will find the magazine on display (at least around here). Similarly with other sources, which it appears the nominator knows very little about. Also, I will note that some of these sources have already been defended earlier in talk by other editors, who showed that they were notable and reputable organizations, with qualified staff who were experts on the subject at hand---so why are they being listed here again with a know-nothing attitude that it "doesnt seem to be a particularly notable organization", again? Perhaps I'm over reacting here, so forgive me if I seem a little harsh with my tone. I'm all for finding the best sources to replace existing sources, but I also think that some of the links would still be good for the External Links section, if not in the body of the article.Giovanni33 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no defense of the above sources prior to this thread. Notability has been checked and found lacking. Misplaced Pages policy is crystal clear that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:V). I will, of course, give you some time to look into these sources and provide defenses of notability, and I'm sure you'll agree that David Horowitz is at least as notable as many of these (in fairness). The Znet print magazine certainly seems much more reliable than just the web site. Was the Hammond article printed in the magazine or just on the website? - Merzbow 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Merzbow basically conceded above that Znet is probably a notable source, the issue is with the author of the particular piece, who is not notable. I'm very familiar with Znet, and one thing about it is that it's pretty easy to get published there (which I think is cool). There are a lot of notable authors published on Z, but also neighborhood-level activists, etc., and I think we should stick to the former if we want to use Znet here. As I've said I think Merzbow is open to arguments that these sources are valid (see our discussion above about the World Socialist Web Site), so I think we'll be able to hash this out. I just perused the list briefly but some sources did seem problematic. I'm sure we'll keep some, lose others, and hopefully add better sources along the way. Let's just talk it out using specific comments about specific sources. As to Merzbow's last comment, the Hammond piece was almost certainly published only on Znet--anyway I really think it's no big deal to lose that, but some Z material would be worthy of inclusion if the author is sufficiently notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict in reply to Merzbow). Go back to the list of sources you raised, before on talk. I recall commenting on Redress.org, at that time, after looking at the source. Do you not remember? I'm sure by now its well in the archives but was just last month. Other editors defended most of the other sources you listed (and are relisted here). Zmag often publishes what it publishes in Znet, but not always. Regarding Horowitz, see above. He is notiable as an activist, but not reliable to count on what he says as a serious rebuttle to anything of import on this article. He has no notablity on this subject in any of his writings, other than maybe attacking Chomsky personally. If the POV that Horowitz is going to be cited for is actually echoed by other writers then that at least shows that is POV is notable.Giovanni33 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed footnote 14 as described above. The source is now an Inter Press Service article quoting multiple sources rather than a Znet article by a non-notable author. I think it still backs the last sentence in the intro, and is an improvement in terms of sourcing. I did this somewhat unilaterally with only a little discussion so feel free to revert it if someone thinks it's a problem, but I did not think it would be too controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not commented on, and I've asked multiple times, look in the "Sources" section. If nobody is willing to defend a source, it will be removed. And we will absolutely, positively, not have double standards for liberal and conservative sources here. James Bovard is in the same boat as Horowitz, both are widely-published authors on a wide variety of subjects who are not academics. Let's take this as an opportunity to educate each other about sources, because otherwise, nothing will get accomplished. - Merzbow 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sources are not required to meet notability requirements, articles are. You cannot remove sources becaue you never heard of them. --74.73.16.230 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "notable" is the wrong word since it could create confusion with another policy, but we do need to use reliable sources, and for the purposes of this article I think we should use expert sources whenever possible. The Znet article was by a independent researcher/teacher/activist, not an expert on the issue at hand as far as we know. At best it is a questionable source. I replaced it with a source that quoted experts, but made the same basic point articulated in the intro sentence it was supporting. I guess I don't see the problem--stronger sourcing will make it much more difficult to delete or AfD this article, so I would think you would view it as a good thing. But again, feel free to revert me if you think the Znet article is particularly important, and then discuss it further here. I'm signing off for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to Znet in particular, but this idea of removing Human Rights groups because we never heard of them, especially when they are operated out of a country no one here has stated they are from, not that being from France would still have much bearing. I am commenting no a large portion of the complaints which state they cannot find anything on the author, or never heard of them, or their group, or their site. What we know, or how popular a source is on the internet is not a reason to remove the author. This type of argument is not really acceptable and not per any policy. I believe there is a note in a policy specifically warning against judging things by your own knowledge of them. --SixOfDiamonds 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref 109 and Felix Würsten are notable. "Some Swiss college" is ETH Zurich, Einstein's Alma Mater, and one of the most prestigious universities in the world. This article is a report of a conference on NATO at ETH's Center for Security Studies. All very notable. ... Seabhcan 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this fact sums up exactly why, "I never heard of it", is not a measuring stick. I am starting to worry about this constant questioning of sources without actual research on the topic. This is starting to become disruptive and I ask anyone who wants to question sources to please look them up and do some research on them first. Apparently the third link on google for ETH brings you to the Misplaced Pages article which shows not only the prestigious nature of the college, but some of the nobel prize winning faculty. Listing this as "some swiss school" was either disingenuous or a show that research was not done before declaring things "not notable" which as I mention is not a measurement for sources, but for articles. --SixOfDiamonds 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a campus weekly newspaper. Questioning this source was a absolutely necessary. And the standard for sources is reliability, which is a similar concept to notability: WP:RS - "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources. - Merzbow 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not about liberal or conservative sources, if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and I am then asking you to leave this discussion, this is not some extended battle ground for next years elections. Further adding a source you believe fails WP:RS to prove a point about "liberal" sources is a violation of WP:POINT --SixOfDiamonds 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Civility. Agree with Merzbow. Exception claims require exceptional sources. No double standard please.Ultramarine 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Tried to, apparently its not a real link. Not really sure how its relevant considering Merzbow stated: "I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources." You can report it somewhere if you like, I am sure an admin will explain to Merzbow at that point that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. --SixOfDiamonds 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Please read Misplaced Pages:Civility.Ultramarine 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. No one is leaving this discussion short of an arbcom remedy, so cease telling people to do so...you don't own this article. If this article ever is going to be neutral, it has to have appropriate rebuttals which examine the basis of evidence and or political rationale for some of the sources some are using here.--MONGO 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement was "if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and I am then asking you to leave this discussion," Please try to read the statement in full before commenting. As for WP:OWN, I think I have barely added anything into the article itself, and have done quite a bit less reverting then you have. Please leave your politics at home. --SixOfDiamonds 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."Ultramarine 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said he was trying to hurt it? Please read more carefully in the future. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by every word I said, because I am seeing editors here apply wildly different standards for notability for certain sources with the only difference being that those sources are from a conservative POV (I'll refrain from pointing out specific examples, this talk page is full of them). All I'm looking for is a simple "yes" to the question "Are you willing to apply the same standard for reliability to all sources, regardless of a source's POV"? If the answer is not "yes", then there is no common ground here. I am looking for "yes"'s from all editors here, on all sides. My answer is, of course, yes. - Merzbow 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a yes or no question, please leave your politics at home. Anyone who goes out looking for "conservative" sources to counter what they deam to be "liberal sources" is doing harm to Misplaced Pages, especially if they are not considering WP:RS or willing to work outside of it simply because "liberal sources" are not following it. Which is a violation of WP:POINT. If you have sources to add, do so and they will be measured against WP:RS on their own merit, not what political faction you or anyone else have assigned them to. --SixOfDiamonds 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I ask you to read Misplaced Pages:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Yes, of course Merzbow is right. No double standard.Ultramarine 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying sources should be added because they are conservative or liberal; they should be added to achieve NPOV, and right now the article is weighted towards the POV of those who claim the US conducts state terror. I will henceforth not mention "conservative" or "liberal", since you seem to be taking great pains now not to refer to the political views of any source. Should I take your statement as a "yes", the POV of a source is irrelevant to its reliability? - Merzbow 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS determines reliability. --SixOfDiamonds 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But as far as I am concerned, referencing in known radicals to support the tenant that the US==terrorism sponsor is a violation of SYNTH. From Chomsky to Falk to Ganser, et al, I see repeated and easily demonstrated evidence that these guys have all refused to acknowledge the terrorism supported by such nations as Syria, Iran and others. Falk has apparently pubished a POV laden bilge about 9/11 conspiracy theories with a well known 9/11 CTer. In addition, Falk has also accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. Ganser has also been involved in ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory work. I ask if these people are to be considered to be permitted here as adeqaute referencing to support the radical notion that the US==state terrorism sponsor, then a proper rebuttal of this pov and the authors who are cited as having it is the only way to achieve NPOV. SixOfDiamonds...you leave your politics at home.--MONGO 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, what are my politics since I have expressed them here? I am sure you will sorely fail to categorize them. Again sources are not liberal or conservative, we do not weigh them in that manner. It is good you have all told that to Merzbow as no one supports adding sources based on their political leaning. --SixOfDiamonds 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article must follow WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP.Ultramarine 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This sub-thread has now reached the end of its useful life, let's reserve the rest of this section for discussing the pros and cons of the sources in my list. - Merzbow 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Redress, British Overseas NGOs for Development and Bulatlat cannot be challenged because you never heard of them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It can. Exceptional claims requires exception sources.Ultramarine 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He is only claiming he never heard of the source. You cannot say they do not meet the requirement if you don't know anything about them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am stating that for example a Philippine activist zine, "The Philippine's Alternative Weekly Online Newsmagazine, is not an exceptional source.Ultramarine 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

Taking stock. This is a long comment, but I'm trying to help to draw this discussion to a fruitful conclusion, which I think is very doable. I think some of the recent discussion above has been less than productive, and I want to try to take stock of where we are at. It is much better to speak of specific sources which is what I will do. Once we deal with the sources Merzbow has brought up, we can move on to other work, and hopefully do so feeling that we talked out these issues fairly and worked on them together. To some editors fighting to retain these sources and complaining about this list (who are essentially on "my side" of the debate) I do think Merzbow has been pretty fair here. For example, Merzbow agreed to retain a Trotskyist web site, which I think some other editors would have strongly objected to. I think we should continue to work through the list, which is the point of this talk section and of this comment. Incidentally, I plan to force myself into an extended Wikibreak fairly soon (I have too much academic work to do which I have been putting off) and thus at some point in the next couple of days will probably begin to comment infrequently if at all (at least that's my goal). I do think the discussion here has been much elevated of late from what it was before, and I hope that trend continues. I think it is possible to produce a good, balanced article here which many editors would be okay with, and if we can do that it would certainly be a testament to Wiki-collaborating despite large differences of opinion. Anyhow, on to the remainder of Merzbow's list above, which I have subdivided. Summary thought at the end of the list.

Probable delete, no severe harm if deleted

• ref 9, redress.org. I think this document counts as a reliable source from a notable organization. However I do not see where it argues that the United States has engaged in state terrorism. I searched the PDF for the stem "state terror" and it only appeared a few times, never accusing the United States of this action. Given the focus of the three sections of the paper, and after a quick skim of some of it, I just don't see where there is such an accusation. I did not read the whole thing, so if I missed something and if it does accuse the US of state terrorism in some fashion, then I think it should be retained. Deleting it would not be a major problem, it is one of nine footnotes.
• ref 12, Stephen Gowans, I don't think he constitutes a reliable source for our purposes, he is an activist who has done some writing for left publications. Deleting it would not be a major problem, it is one of three footnotes, and the point in the sentence it follows is about Chomsky, who is dealt with in the other two sources.

Probable delete, should be an effort to replace

• ref 131 (now 137), Counterpunch article by Petras. Makes a controversial claim while vaguely referring to "Human rights groups" as a source. Petras seems to have good academic credentials (albeit with a radical POV), but I don't see any expertise on the Philippines which I think is needed for a controversial claim like this. The claim this source backs up is interesting and important to that section, but I think we must have another source here. Without it, we should delete the sentence for the time being and only reinstate with a good source.

Probable keep

• ref 69, Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group. Info posted by Bmedley Sutler convinces me that this source is notable, certainly for the purpose for which it is used. The sentence it backs up says: "In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War". Obviously this is simply a matter of fact (no opinion, no interpretation), and it is mentioned in the article cited. I think Haugaard is thus a perfectly reliable source--she is an expert on these issues, and can clearly be cited for such a basic and uncontroversial claim.
• ref 71, James Bovard. Although this is an opinion article, it is not used in that fashion. The cited passages is actually Bovard citing the manual "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War" referred to in ref 69. Citing the manual itself would be ideal (I did not check to see if it was available) but I think using a secondary source to quote a primary source in this way is acceptable, though I know there is some debate about this kind of thing. This is the only source for this quote, so if it's deleted a replacement should be found.
• ref 93 (now 95 as I write this), Robert Parry. Parry is fairly notable I think--it's debatable--but here again as in the Bovard piece he is summarizing another source, and I do not have a problem with that (or for any other source on either side of these debates). He is summarizing a report from the Historical Clarification Commission re: Guatemala. Using that source would be ideal, but I think Parry's summary is plenty sufficient for the time being.
• ref 96 (now 98) Palmer Legare, Resource Center of the Americas. You'll have to take my word for this, but I've done primary source research on US involvement in Latin America, and I can assure that Resource Center of the Americas is extremely well respected by scholars and often visited by researches because of their excellent documentary sources (I planned to do so when I was doing some work on the Carter admin but did not have time). But aside from that, look at how the source is used. It is used to establish the very minor fact that General Hector Gramajo Morales gave a commencement speech at the School of the Americas. I completely trust anything posted by Resource Center of the Americas (it seems they were not even the original publisher) for a minor factual detail such as this.
• ref 130 (now 135). Frida Berrigan, a very well known activist and writer and daughter of Philip Berrigan (which is why she is known) and Foreign Policy in Focus together easily pass the reliable source test in my opinion. Merzbow's comparison to Horowitz is quite apt I think, and I think for the time being it's fine to use both of them. If better sources are found, great.

Questionable

• ref 122 (now 127), Bulatlat. Hard to tell if it is notable or not. However the article is summarizing a "report of the human rights alliance Karapatan" which is who we should be concerned about. I think summarizing reports via secondary sources is okay for our purposes as I've said above (mainly because it happens so often on Misplaced Pages) but we would need to establish if the original report was notable (Misplaced Pages has an article about Karapatan, so it seems likely). It backs up important claims not made by other sources, so if it is not acceptable there should be an effort to find an alternative source.

Doesn't matter

• ref 121 (now 126), Tom Allen on the website of a group called BOND. Here is the sentence this source backs up: "The Philippines has been considered a United States protectorate and/or colony since the late 1890s, playing a central role in the U.S. Navy's global strategic presence." It could be worded better (colony is indisputable of course, but "protectorate" is unnecessarily POV), but this is an extremely uncontroversial claim. Few would question that the Philippines has been important for the US in terms of its naval strategy, and of course the two countries have a close relationship. If this source is deemed insufficient for backing these claims, it would be very easy to find another one. But I don't know that we need a source at all.

That's my 43 cents for what it's worth. The main thing I noticed in looking through these sources in detail was that some of them backed very minor factual points or summarized the arguments of others which I think should not be controversial. I think we should give close scrutiny to sources which say "this was state terrorism by the US" but not worry as much about sourcing for fairly minor factual claims. I still think going through these sources like this has been a very useful endeavor.

To quote Nietzsche out of context, "objections, digressions, gay mistrust" directed toward my comment here are of course welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort here. The good news is so many of these will be easier to replace than I thought; i.e. the ones referencing facts or quoting notable reports (detailed comments follow in next paragraph). I hope this effort has served to establish a baseline for reliability of sources for this article. If a source is originating analysis as opposed to just quoting or summarizing some other report, the bar of reliability should be higher. But the best thing to do is avoid reliability challenges in the first place by sourcing from the underlying report directly, eliminating the need for discussions like this in the first place.

For 9, I also couldn't find any accusation in the Redress report, I'll give a couple of days for somebody to find such before removal. 12 of course I agree should go. 131 is making a strong claim with dubious sourcing and reliability, it can also be given a few days before removal to see if an alternative can be found. I withdraw the challenges to 69, 71, and 130. As for 93, it will be easy to use the notable report directly as a source, this can be done at leisure. 96 is indeed backing a trivial fact; without getting into a discussion of the reliability of the source (I have seen objections), we can also replace this at leisure. 122 (and 124, also from Bulatlat) reference reports that can be sourced directly; the one mentioned in 124 might require some looking though. 121 is an absolutely trivial fact, it should be easy to support this from a history book or such.

One last thing... even if you comment more infrequently in your Wikibreak, do keep an eye out here, you've been an important force for stabilizing this article. (So has east; it's likely this would still be on permanent protection if you two hadn't shown up). - Merzbow 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my summary from this version:

• 9 - it should go, the paper makes no accusations and it's from a shaky source at best.
• 12 - not a reliable source in my opinion; POV-pusher; has only been published in marginal publications. Delete it.
• 14 - I've never heard of Hammond and can't seem to find his notability. The publication is of significance though.
• 67, 71, 130 - keep them.
• 93 - this should be backed up by the report that he is summarizing, ideally with a couple direct quotes.
• 96, 109 - I don't know a thing about these authors, I'll defer judgement for now.
• 117 - should obviously be removed.

Here's a couple that Merzbow didn't touch on:

• 95, 99 - a blog with no author that is clearly extremist. It's cited only for a bio, it should be easy to find an RS that says the same.
• 111 - Google translations should not be used; either we should use the original text or get an RS that examines it.

Unfortunately I'm going to be on break too, I'm taking a vacation in a country without Internet access. east.718 07:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

William Blum as a source

William Blum is a socialist US critic praised by bin Laden. His not an academic and does not publish in academic press. He has worked with spreaders of KGB disinformation. Should be removed as an unreliable source. Objections? Ultramarine 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his article apparently cites him as more then reliable. --SixOfDiamonds 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What article and how does it proves he is reliable? Ultramarine 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, the description "socialist" does not make a person unreliable. William Blum's book was published in 2003, long after "spreaders of KGB disinformation" went out of business, and being praised by Bin Laden does not make one an enemy. Bin Laden also praised Sweden. Do you have anything more than your dislike for what Blum has to say? ... Seabhcan 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an academic and does not publish in academic press. His prior record casts further serious doubts about his reliability.Ultramarine 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's not academic. Rather he's notable due to his former employ in the US government and the popularity of his book . If we can't have Blum, why can we have Dennis Halliday? What in his prior record cast doubt, in your opinion? ... Seabhcan 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Working with Philip Agee casts doubts on anyone's reliability, to say the least.Ultramarine 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem, if you have an issue with Blums work that is being cited please state what that issue is. However attacking the people and is no help here. --SixOfDiamonds 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already listed several reasons above.Ultramarine 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are not arguments against what he is being cited for. Saying bin Laden likes to read Blum does not disqualify Blum as WP:RS. Stating his political perspective is further not a reason to disqualify him. He surely meets WP:RS by looking at his article here. He has been published multiple times for his work in the field, that qualifies him under WP:RS. --74.73.16.230 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Z magazine vs. Frontpage magazine

Both are very partisan activist magazines. If including one of them, then similar sources from the other sides should also be allowed.Ultramarine 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is the guide, we should look at the publisher, author, and their credentials to determine issues. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --SixOfDiamonds 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean. Are you saying that ZM and FPM are as good as academic sources? Ultramarine 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources that pass WP:RS are acceptable as sources. Not sure why that was not clear. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --74.73.16.230 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Since the article includes left-wing sources such as Z magazine and William Blum, discussed above, what is the objection to the The Anti-Chomsky Reader? Ultramarine 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the past discussion, the comments being drawn from it are not discussing Chomskys definition, they are attacking Chomsky as a person. It is not a correct rebuttal of an argument for his definition to say he should have called Pol Pot terrorism. That is a ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy. --74.73.16.230 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update on Iran

The leader of the terrorist group PJAK, claims in an interview that his group is supported by the US and German governments.(Press TV) ... Seabhcan 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently picked up by Associated Press and mentions it was picked up by the New Yorker, would be interesting to see what the New Yorker article actually says. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Been denied, so it should be easy to present a counter point and make it NPOV - Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs --SixOfDiamonds 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trained by US soldiers Turkish Daily --SixOfDiamonds 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich to congress. Interesting stuff. Plenty of material. If you need help Seabhcan please let me know. --SixOfDiamonds 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Yorker , sorry last one. --SixOfDiamonds 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid to add anything myself - I'll let someone else do it. ... Seabhcan 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One reasonable speculation is that Washington planners may be seeking to inspire secessionist movements that the United States can then “defend” against the home country. In Iran, the main oil resources are in the Arab areas adjacent to the Gulf, Iran’s Khuzestan—and sure enough, there is now an Ahwazi liberation movement of unknown origin, claiming unspecified rights of autonomy. Nearby, Iraq and the gulf states provide a base for U.S. military intervention. Anyone want to tackle condensing that into the article? LamontCranston 6:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphical descriptions of rape and murder

Why is there graphical descriptions of rape and murder that done in Nicaragua and Guatemala. These descriptions add no factual contents but seems to be included only to evoke a emotinal reactio. The connection to the US is extremely thin. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. The Guatemala rape involved unknown persons. That one of them spoke American English is not evidence for US state terrorism, many people speak American English without being secrect US government agents. Or even being Americans, if they have had some eduction in the US, as many higher government officials in Latin America have.Ultramarine 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the quote is sourced from a book called "State Terrorism and the United States", and that that book deems the description significant (it goes on for several pages there, this is just a mild excerpt), argues in favour of it remaining. We argued about this point many times before, so this is all I'll say on the topic. ... Seabhcan 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Nicaraguan rape and murder? Regarding Guatemala, could you explain the connection to US state terrorism? Ultramarine 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the source and let me know if you still have a question. I think this idea of asking without researching goes contrary to why the sources are provided in the first place. If you read the source and still have questions, then it is understandable, please let me know then what you would like clarified. --SixOfDiamonds 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still does not anwer the Nicaraguan rape and murder. If no objections and explanation, I will remove it. If I do not understand the connection between the Guatemala rape and US "state terrorism", then many other will not, so it should be removed also.Ultramarine 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will revert it as vandalism. This is not a content dispute, your inability, or unwillingness to review a source as provided is before removing it on the grounds of relevance is not acceptable. Again I am more then willing to assist you after you have read the source to answer any question you may have. --SixOfDiamonds 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no response regarding why the Nicaraguan rape and murder should be inlcuded. Regarding the Guatemala case, obviously the passage must be coherent to the reader, otherwise it should be removed.Ultramarine 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no response regarding the Nicaraguan case. Unless a respone, I will remove due to no objections. Regarding the Guatemala case, that there may be an explanation of the connection between this rape and US "state terrorism" is beside he point. Obviously the passage must be coherent to the Misplaced Pages reader.Ultramarine 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Mind if I find a bot to keep repeating this for me? I am getting tired of explaining to you that you have to read the source. This is starting to seem like tendentious editing to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That goes both way SixOfDiamonds. I find your edits to be tendentious frankly.--MONGO 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try not to interject simply to attack another editor, its against policy. --SixOfDiamonds 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nicaraguan rape is not in the book about state terrorism, so the above arguments do not apply, and explanation for its inclusion have not been given. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. Yes, you say read the source, but my argument is not that there is not someone claiming that the rape in Guatemala was state terrorism by the US. The point is that the connection should be explained, or the text is incoherent.Ultramarine 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SixOfDiamonds, do not remove other users talk pages comments, like you just did. That is considered vandalism.Ultramarine 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF it was a edit conflict. This is why you should ask first. --SixOfDiamonds 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How could it be an edit conflict? You made the edit before this.Ultramarine 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit of mine that he removed was me saying that I agree the Nicaraguan rape material is not relevant. - Merzbow 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an obvious edit conflict as my own comments were removed in the dif you provide. This is again, why its better to ask, or make note, before accusing anyone of doing something on purpose for malicious reasons. WP:AGF Ultramarine. --SixOfDiamonds 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this still does not give any explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaraguan rape.Ultramarine 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. --SixOfDiamonds 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give an explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaragua material.Ultramarine 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is bad form to continue conversations in two locations. This thread is complete. --SixOfDiamonds 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will continue below.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one wanted to read the original source, I added another. --SixOfDiamonds 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this unsourced article. There is no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a republishing of the article from The Nation, which is why I sourced the original, not the excerpt. --SixOfDiamonds 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still unsourced and still no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a source listed, its currently source 100. --SixOfDiamonds 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nation article has no sources. Regardless, it does not mention that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Sources that meet WP:RS such as The Nation, do not need to list their sources, that is a Misplaced Pages policy. Newspapers do not operate on Wiki policy. --SixOfDiamonds 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is partisan source. That the article lists no sources for its claims make the claims less reliable and unverifiable, reputable newspapers gives sources for extraordinary claims. Regardless, the article does not claim that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Further it does not need to list sources. Perhaps you should ask the people over at WP:RS if sources like newspapers need to list their sources. --SixOfDiamonds 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What has some torture chambers got to do with this rape?Ultramarine 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please rephrase your question, considering the context of the discussion and what is being discussed, I do not understand. --SixOfDiamonds 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the relation between alleged torture chambers run by the CIA and the rape?Ultramarine 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the connection between torture chambers ran by the CIA in Guatemala and a rape of a women who sued the US government for her rape in a torture chamber in Guatemala? --SixOfDiamonds 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OR reserch connection, not allowed. The article makes no such connection. Regarding Nicaragua, please give an explanation for the inclusion of the material.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

The source specifically comments on Sister Ortiz and makes the same point, that the US supported the Guatemalan terrorism. This is not creating a primary source as a primary source is: documents or people very close to the situation being written about. --SixOfDiamonds 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to head off the other jumble of letters, its not WP:SYNTH, because the other source is also stating US involvement and support of the torture. Combining A and B to make C is not permitted, however both A and B are stating the US supported the terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is violating "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"Ultramarine 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating both sources do not say the US was complicit in the torture? --SixOfDiamonds 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a source alleging that the CIA run torture chambers. One place connected to the rape was something that may have been a torture chamber. To synthesize this into claiming that the rape must have taken place in a CÄI torture chamber does not follow logically and is OR reserach.Ultramarine 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no respone regarding Nicaragua.Ultramarine 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and another source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and also in addition that they taught the torturers how to torture. That is not synthesis. If you read the sources, and not just the quotes, you would know that, but you have been refusing the read them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained, it does not follow logically that the rape took place in one of those alleged torture chambers. An OR synthesis not allowed. Still no respone regarding Nicaragua, I take it that you agree to removing this scene? Ultramarine 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Futthermore, the Intelligence Oversight Board in its report does mention some support, but also that the influence was used to try to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources I provide seem to say it was not to lessen human rights violations. It seems we have content that is supported by WP:RS sources and you have some content you can add to establish NPOV. The joy of cooperation. --SixOfDiamonds 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I will now remove Nicaragua as per above. An OR synthesis still not allowed as per above.Ultramarine 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cited 2 more sources, the first states that:

1. Gramajo was a CIA asset
2. being paid by the CIA
3. Gramajo was in charge of the men who raped Ortiz
4. CIA was funding Gramajo's unit G-2

Second states:

1. CIA station cheifs directed G-2
2. G-2 is Gramajos unit
3. Gramajo is a CIA asset

In connection with the previous sources that state Gramajo was connected to the rape of Ortiz and a CIA asset at the time. These are not introducing anything new, they are supporting in full Gramajo's command over those responcible, Gramajo being a CIA asset at the time of doing so, and the CIA funding of the unit G-2. As for the details of the rape, I am on the fence and would like to hear more debate regarding keeping it. While I do not think it should be censored, the section on Guatemala looks like it can be shortened. --SixOfDiamonds 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Nicaragua, I will get to it, so do not remove it. Try to have some patience in requesting assistance. I cannot full research and source one section and a second at the same time. This is why others are asking you not to flood the talk page with a million requests at once. When this topic is done I will gladly move on to Nicaragua. --SixOfDiamonds 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not follow logically from any of this that the US was responsible for the blame. That is an OR synthesis.Ultramarine 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer addressing you on this topic until I have seen you have read the sources. Please let me know when you have. --SixOfDiamonds 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When you ignore quotes like "But all of this information about the U.S. support for Guatemalan intelligence, for the Guatemalan killing apparatus, has been out there for years and years," from the sources, it does not look good. So let me know when you have read the sources before stating "It does not follow logically ... US was responsible for the blame" Also this article covers state terrorism which includes state sponsored terrorism, please keep that in mind. --SixOfDiamonds 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You cite yet more allegations by the same author as previously, in dubious partisan magazines like Z magazine. I take it that you now accept similar sources such as Frontpage magazine? That a person is a "CIA Asset" does not mean that the CIA control everything that he does. Regarding the relationship between D-2 and the CIA, I quote: "The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem."Ultramarine 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is the basis for NPOV. Both sources get included and both sides. I am very happy to work with you as it seems we have accomplished something. Also the interview was Znet Magazine, the other 2 sources where he wrote the article for were The Nation which meets WP:RS. Further, if you still doubt the author, you can read his Misplaced Pages article, he is highly awarded and praised for uncovering the link to the CIA and South American forces. Please actually read the mans article if you wish to keep this going. The link you provide gets included presenting one side, the link I provide presents the other and we have achieved NPOV, praise the lord! , whichever one you do praise, or none for that matter, or multiples of them ... --SixOfDiamonds 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We can include both of these views regarding the D-2, although the same standard will apply to sources from both sides. Regardless, this does not prove that the US ordered the rape. Assuming that Gramajo's men did the rape and that Gramajo ordered this, both questionable, then this still does not prove that the US ordered Gramajo to order the rape.Ultramarine 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

US Sponsored terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you have a claim for this in the state terrorism book. If so, then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since it is claimed that US funded Gramajo or D-2 ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I keep telling you to read the sources. I already posted an excerpt above, the articles are stating the US is responsible for the action because of their funding. One even says they would not have happened if it was not for the US. Again, please read the sources, this is starting to become highly disruptive. --SixOfDiamonds 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since the US funded Gramajo or D-2 who in turn is claimed to have ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are given so we do not have to constantly quote from the source. Too many quotes in an article is not good form. If the user needs to, they can reference the source. The miscommunication here stems from your assumption that the source does not fit, people normally do not read an article or journal and believe that all sources given are not correct. They then go and check the source for additional information, a source is given because it is relevant and connected. You have been challenging them as being neither without reading them causing the mess above. Readers do not have this issue, people do not assume they are being lied to, and if they have doubts, they read the source provided. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Some see the US as indirectly responsible for the rape...since it funded persons or organizations allegedly connected to the rape?"Ultramarine 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is greater then that, the article is titled appropriately that the reader will understand that events mention within it are going toward explaining the title. The sources as such are going toward explaining the information presented within that. If you were reading an article titled "Species of reptiles endemic to Cuba" you would not need the article to state in reference to the section "Cuban crocodiles" that they are endemic to Cuba. It is already being said by the article title. In this instance the title is "state terrorism" the sources support this by citing the sponsorship, funding, training, and over seeing as well as payrolling of those involved with terrorist acts sorted by country, in this case it is Guatemala. --SixOfDiamonds 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Already presented evidence that the US tried to stop the HRV. No evidence has been presented that that the US was responsible for this particular rape, so something like above is all that can be stated. Furthermore, what is the reason for having the long graphic rape scene. Not necessary and only polemical.Ultramarine 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. I am no longer having this discussion with you until you have. It is entirely disruptive to constantly question sources without having read them, once you have read them please let me know, until then removing any will be considered vandalism. As I stated, please let me know when you have finished. --SixOfDiamonds 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism and Misplaced Pages:Civility. Stop accusing me for vandalism which a content dispute is not. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of vandalism. I am telling you, that if you remove sources without even had read them, on the basis they do not contain content, that you have not read to know, then it will be vandalism. WP:FNHGFHEHR Read the sources. --SixOfDiamonds 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is notacontent dipsute or making bold edits. I will note it as a incivility if you make such claims. Back to the issues. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to have knowledge of the content to dispute it. Please read the sources. I will then discuss them with you, no "assumptions", we can discuss what the sources do say. Once you have read them, and care to discuss them, please let me know. --74.73.16.230 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RS, I think disallowing a source because of perceived bias is unreasonably strict and certainly not based on policy. Of course, if we use left-leaning sources it would be absolutely acceptable to use right-leaning ones. However, whatever the bias they should still be notable, some obscure magazine or blog obviously cannot be used. Respectfully. Nomen Nescio 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory regarding the Algiers putsch of 1961

No verifiable source regarding this very obscure conspiracy theory has been added. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In Killing Hope, on page 150, William Blum quotes an unnamed French official as saying: "The CIA played a direct part in the Algiers coup, and certainly weighed heavily on the decision taken by ex-general Challe to start his putsch." Bmedley Sutler 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add this.Ultramarine 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your're welcome. Can we agree to a moratorium on adding new challenges until we have time to address that very long list from Merzbow? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such moratorium by others who keep adding new material without discussion on talk.Ultramarine 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The above has been changed to misleading version, implying that there is official recognition. Pleaes explain.Ultramarine 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism"

Who? I cannot find these (at least two are implied by the statement) in the sources. Ultramarine 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Diana Ortiz

Ex-agent: drug agency had role in CIA crimes.(torture/rape of American nun diana Ortiz; U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; Central Intelligence Agency)

National Catholic Reporter | Date: 9/6/1996 | Author: Wirpsa, Leslie

Former DEA agent Celerino Castillo III says CIA and DEA agents joked about Ortiz the week after the 1989 crime. This and many more revelations about CIA-Guatemalan government atrocities are contained in a recent report of the Presidential Intelligence Oversight Board on Guatemala.

Celerino Castillo III, a former special agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, says he was at the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala talking with several members of the drug agency, the CIA and the State Department a week or so after the November 1989 torture and gang rape of Ursuline Sr. Dianna Ortiz by members of the Guatemalan military.

The representatives of U.S. government agencies, Castillo says, seemed amused by what had happened to Ortiz.

Castillo said the men jokingly asked him "if Dianna Ortiz had been good at sex." Castillo said he believed the others thought he might be the American whom Ortiz says participated in her rape and torture.

Castillo, who was stationed in Central America and worked frequently in Guatemala from 1985 to 1990, says he is not "Alejandro," the person named by Ortiz as her attacker. Ortiz, shown a photograph of Castillo, agrees that he is not. But Castillo, in his statement and recent interviews with NCR, says he and other DEA agents have important information about the role the drug agency and the CIA played in crimes in Guatemala.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:18676175 Bmedley Sutler 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the relevance of this to state terrorism by the United States? Ultramarine 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Looks like John has decided that there is no consensus to move this page back to where it needs to be, namely Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Instead of examining the comments from numerous debates on this issue, he has instead acted unilaterally (having offered little in the way of dicussion lately) for this move after it was moved by East718, who has been trying to make the article better and has participated in the latest discussions...can anyone reference where the United States has been demonstrated by an internatioanlly recognized body like the UN or the EU to actually be a state sponsor of terrorism, or do we have to continue to rely on the OPINIONS of well known extreme radicals for a basis in the current title. I mean, Chomsky has repeatedly been shown to overlook terrorism made by the communist block. Falk has made anti-Semitic comments including calling the Israeli government guilty of genocide and has even coauthored a book about 9/11 conspiracy theories (gag). Ganser, well, it's pretty obvious where he is coming from, and he too is an embracer of idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know I am going to have a long wait for an answer since their is no answer...the fact is, the U.S. has not been decreed by anything like the UN or the EU as a state sponsor of terrorism.--MONGO 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See up the page a bit. I didn't see the discussion you had while I took a break (as I said I was doing), and when I saw it had been moved assumed it was more move vandalism. I moved it back immediately when I saw there was a consensus to adopt the weasel-word title; seems like I missed the talk page. AGF, old chap, can't you? --John 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond to the rant above. The UN does not have a list of terrorist groups. It has a list of groups attached to the Taliban and al'Qeada, which I provided a link in the AfD that showed the fallacy of citing that as a terrorist list. --74.73.16.230 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles