Talk:United States and state terrorism and Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs)
 
→‎Death: Cut down over-sourcing
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Person
{{peerreview}}
| name = Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| image = VirginiaPoe.jpg
|maxarchivesize = 250K
| image_size = 180px
|counter = 14
| caption = Virginia Poe, image created after her death.
|algo = old(336h)
| birth_date = {{birth date|1822|8|22|mf=y}}
|archive = Talk:Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States/Archive %(counter)d
| birth_date = [[August 22]], [[1822]]
| birth_place = [[Baltimore, Maryland]]
| death_date = {{death date and age|1847|01|30|1822|08|22}}
| death_place = [[Fordham, New York]]
| spouse = [[Edgar Allan Poe]]
}}
}}
'''Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe''' ([[August 22]], [[1822]] – [[January 30]], [[1847]]), born '''Virginia Eliza Clemm''', was the wife of [[Edgar Allan Poe]]. The couple were first-cousins and married when Virginia was only 13 and Poe was 27.
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{controversial}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{WikiProjectBanners|
1={{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=high}}|
2={{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=high}}}}
{{oldafdmulti
|date=November 25, 2005
|result='''Keep''' (no consensus)
|page=American terrorism
|date2=August 9, 2006
|result2='''Keep''' (no consensus)
|page2=State terrorism by United States of America
|date3=December 12, 2006
|result3='''Keep'''
|page3=Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
|date4=January 11, 2007
|result4='''Speedy Keep'''
|page4=Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination)
|date5=March 30, 2007
|result5='''Keep'''
|page5=State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination)
|date6=June 25, 2007
|result6='''Keep''' (no consensus)
|page6=State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)
|date7=December 17, 2007
|result7='''Speedy Keep'''
|page7=Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
}}
{{Archive box|<center>[[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States/strawpolls|2006 straw poll on title]]<br />[[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 1|1]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 2|2]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 3|3]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 4|4]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 5|5]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 6|6]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 7|7]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 8|8]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 9|9]], [[Talk:State terrorism by the United States/Archive 10|10]], [[Talk:State terrorism by the United States/Archive 11|11]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 12|12]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 13|13]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 14|14]], [[Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 15|15]]</center>}}


The two lived together off and on along with other family members for several years before their marriage. A few years after their wedding, Poe was involved in a substantial scandal involving [[Frances Sargent Osgood]] and [[Elizabeth F. Ellet]]. The scandal involved rumors about alleged amorous improprieties on her husband's part. She had previously become sick with [[tuberculosis]]. She struggled with this illness for several years before her death in January 1847 at age 24. The scandal still on her mind, on her deathbed she claimed that Ellet was her murderer.
== Opposing views ==


Virginia's disease and eventual death had a substantial impact on her husband. In his poetry and prose, dying young women appear as a frequent motif, possibly inspired by Virginia.
<div style="background-color: #d3e9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
Halperin ''et al.'' propose that one reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations, the poor population without a middle class would vote for [[populist]] politics that would eventually fail, causing disappointment, and a return to dictatorship or even violent internal conflict. This, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth and creates a solid middle class have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships. www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html <!--this page is on the spam blacklist, which I am currently protesting--> Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.


==Biography==
Research on the [[democratic peace theory]] has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example [[Spencer R. Weart]] argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.<ref>{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | id=ISBN 0-300-07017-9 }}p. 221-224, 314.</ref>
===Early life===
[[Image:PoeFamilyTree.svg|thumb|400px|Poe family tree]]
Virginia Eliza Clemm was born on [[August 22]], [[1822]]<ref name=Quinn17>Quinn, 17</ref> and named after an older sister who died as an infant<ref name=Silverman82>Silverman, 82</ref> only ten days earlier.<ref name=Quinn17/> Her father William Clemm, Jr. was a hardware merchant in Baltimore.<ref name=Silverman81>Silverman 81</ref> He had married Maria Poe, Virginia's mother, as a second wife in [[July 12]], [[1817]],<ref>Quinn, 726</ref> after the death of his first wife, Maria's first cousin Harriet.<ref>Meyers, 59</ref> He had five children from his previous marriage and had three with Maria.<ref name=Silverman81/> After his death in 1826, he left very little to the family<ref name=Meyers60>Meyers, 60</ref> and relatives offered no financial support because they had opposed the marriage.<ref name=Silverman81/> Maria supported the family as best she could by sewing, taking in borders, and with an annual $240 pension granted to her mother Elizabeth Cairnes, who was paralyzed and bedridden.<ref name=Meyers60/> Elizabeth received this pension on behalf of her late husband, "General" David Poe, a former [[quartermaster]] in Maryland who had loaned money to the state.<ref>Quinn, 256</ref>


Edgar Poe first met his first-cousin Virginia in August 1829, four months after his discharge from the Army. She was seven at the time.<ref name=Sova52>Sova, 52</ref> In 1832, the family — made up of Elizabeth, Maria, Virginia, Virginia's brother Henry, and Poe's older brother William Henry Leonard<ref name=Sova52/> — were able to use Elizabeth's pension to rent a home at what was then [[Edgar Allan Poe House and Museum|3 Amity Street]] in Baltimore.<ref>Haas, Irvin. ''Historic Homes of American Authors''. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press, 1991. ISBN 0891331808. p. 78</ref> William Henry Leonard died on [[August 1]], [[1831]].<ref>Quinn, 187–188</ref> Poe joined the household in 1833<ref>Silverman, 96</ref> and smitten by a neighbor named Mary Devereaux. The young Virginia served as a messenger between the two, at one point retrieving a lock of Devereaux's hair as a gift to Poe.<ref>Sova, 67</ref> Elizabeth Cairnes Poe died on [[July 7]], [[1835]], effectively ending the family's income and making their financial situation even more dire.<ref>Quinn, 218</ref> Henry died around this time, sometime before 1836, leaving Virginia as Maria Clemm's only surviving child.<ref>Silverman, 323</ref>
Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM][http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG23.4.GIF][http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.FIG2.GIF]<ref>''[http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/genocide/ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?]'', Barbara Harff, 2003.</ref> Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that ''New York Times'' coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v004/4.4caliendo.html][http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152798_index.html] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the [[Second Congo War]], which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military and have a less active foreign policy since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9266967][http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/407850/all]


Poe left the destitute family behind and moved to [[Richmond, Virginia]], taking a job at the ''[[Southern Literary Messenger]]'' in August 1835.<ref>Sova, 225</ref> While away from Baltimore, another cousin, Neilson Poe, the husband of Virginia's half-sister Josephine Clemm,<ref name=Quinn219/> heard Edgar was considering marrying Virginia. He offered to take her and have her educated. His offer was an attempt at preventing her marriage to Edgar at such a young age, though he suggested the option be reconsidered later.<ref>Silverman, 104</ref> Edgar called Neilson, the owner of a newspaper in [[Baltimore, Maryland]], his "bitterest enemy" and interpreted his cousin's actions as an attempt to breaking his connection with Virginia.<ref name=Meyers72>Meyers, 72</ref> On [[August 29]], [[1835]],<ref name=Meyers72/> Edgar wrote an emotional letter to Maria, saying he was "blinded with tears while writing",<ref name=Quinn219>Quinn, 219</ref> pleading that she allow Virginia to make her own decision.<ref>Silverman, 105</ref> Encouraged by his employment at the ''Southern Literary Messenger'', Poe offered to provide financially for Maria, Virginia and Henry if they moved to Richmond.<ref>Meyers, 74</ref>
That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.


===Marriage===
[[Niall Ferguson]] argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/11/ixopinion.html]. The US Intelligence Oversight Board<ref>[http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm Report on the Guatemala Review] Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.</ref> points out that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the US helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.
[[Image:PoeMarriage.JPG|thumb|left|Virginia and Edgar's marriage certificate]]
</div>
Marriage plans were confirmed and Poe returned to Baltimore to file for a marriage license on [[September 22]], [[1835]]. They may have quietly gotten married as well, though accounts are unclear.<ref name=Silverman107>Silverman, 107</ref> Their only public ceremony was in Richmond on [[May 16]], [[1836]], when they were married by a Presbyterian minister named Rev. Amasa Converse.<ref name=Meyers85>Meyers, 85</ref> Edgar was 27 and Virginia was 13, though the two listed her age as 21.<ref name=Meyers85/> This marriage bond was filed in Richmond and included an [[affidavit]] from Thomas W. Cleland confirming her alleged age.<ref>Quinn, 252</ref>
===Suggestions===
The ceremony was held in the evening at the home of a Mrs. James Yarrington,<ref name=Quinn254>Quinn, 254</ref> the owner of the [[boarding house]] in which Edgar, Virginia, and Virginia's mother Maria Clemm were staying.<ref>Quinn, 230</ref> Yarrington helped Maria Clemm bake the wedding cake and prepared a wedding meal.<ref>Sova, 263</ref> The couple had a short [[honeymoon]] in [[Petersburg, Virginia]].<ref name=Quinn254/>
Great work on "Opposing Views" section! I suggest some minor, rewordings along the same lines.
<blockquote>
Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.
</blockquote>
Could be replaced with:
<div style="background-color: #d3e9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
Studies have found that US media focus on countries where the US has an interest,[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v004/4.4caliendo.html]
[http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152798_index.html] and may not cover stories in other countries. Analysts argue that media coverage of human rights violations is dominated by stories from countries where the US is already involved, resulting (intentionally or unintentionally) in a biased portrayal of US involvement in human rights violations, which may incorrectly appear to lend support to Chomsky's claims.{{citation needed}}
</div>


Debate has raged regarding how unusual this pairing was based on their age and blood relationship. Noted Poe biographer Arthur Hobson Quinn says it was not particularly unusual, nor was Edgar's nickname of "Sissy" or "Sis".<ref>Hoffman, 26</ref> Another Poe biographer, [[Kenneth Silverman]], says that though their first-cousin marriage was not unusual, her young age was.<ref name=Silverman107/> It has been suggested that Clemm and Poe had a brother–sister relationship.<ref>Krutch, 52</ref> Scholars, including [[Princess Marie Bonaparte|Marie Bonaparte]], have read many of Poe's works as autobiographical and have concluded that Virginia died a [[virginity|virgin]]<ref name=Hoffman27>Hoffman, 27</ref> because she and her husband never consummated their marriage,<ref>Richard, Claude and Jean-Marie Bonnet, "[http://www.eapoe.org/pstudies/PS1960/P1968108.HTM Raising the Wind; or, French Editions of the Works of Edgar Allan Poe]," ''Poe Newsletter'', vol. I, No. 1, April 1968, p. 12.</ref> especially if assuming Virginia is the title character in the poem "[[Annabel Lee]]," a "maiden... by the name of Annabel Lee."<ref name=Hoffman27/> Poe biographer Joseph Wood Krutch suggested that Poe did not need women "in the way that normal men need them", but only as a source of inspiration and care.<ref>Krutch, 54</ref> Friends of Poe suggested that they did not share a bed for at least the first two years of their marriage but, when she turned 16, began a "normal" married life until her illness.<ref name=Sova53>Sova, 53</ref>
I am trying to avoid having the article draw a new conclusion (does anyone know of a reference for the claim that someone reputable has made the final statement there?), and removed the inflammatory "falsely". Perhaps the word "biased" could be toned down as well?


Virginia and Edgar were by all accounts a happy and devoted couple. Poe's one-time employer [[George Rex Graham]] wrote of their relationship: "His love for his wife was a sort of rapturous worship of the spirit of beauty."<ref>Oberholtzer, 299</ref> She, in turn, by many contemporary accounts, nearly idolized her husband<ref>Hoffman, 318</ref> and showed her love in an [[acrostic]] poem she composed, dated [[February 14]], [[1846]]:
Also, I would suggest a minor rewording in another paragraph
<blockquote>
That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control.


<poem>
[[Niall Ferguson]] argues that the US is incorrectly blamed for many human rights violations in nations they have supported. For example, the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/11/ixopinion.html].
:Ever with thee I wish to roam -
</blockquote>
:Dearest my life is thine.
:Give me a cottage for my home
:And a rich old cypress vine,
:Removed from the world with its sin and care
:And the tattling of many tongues.
:Love alone shall guide us when we are there -
:Love shall heal my weakened lungs;
:And Oh, the tranquil hours we'll spend,
:Never wishing that others may see!
:Perfect ease we'll enjoy, without thinking to lend
:Ourselves to the world and its glee -
:Ever peaceful and blissful we'll be.<ref>Quinn, 497</ref></poem>


===Osgood/Ellet scandal===
Could be replaced with
The "tattling of many tongues" in Virginia's Valentine poem was a reference to actual incidents.<ref>Moss, 214</ref> Poe had begun a flirtation with [[Frances Sargent Osgood]], a married 34-year old poet.<ref>Silverman, 280</ref> Virginia was aware of their friendship and may have encouraged it.<ref name=Meyers190>Meyers, 190</ref> She often invited Osgood to visit them at home, imagining that she had a "restraining" effect on her husband, who had made a promise to "give up the use of stimulants" and was never drunk in her presence.<ref>Silverman, 287</ref>
<div style="background-color: #d3e9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing of POWs. But these acts are contrary to US law as written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice,[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html] and perpetrators are prosecuted.{{citation needed}} [[Niall Ferguson]] and others{{citation needed}} argue that the US is not responsible for human rights abuses committed by foreign governments or foreign nationals. One example of this reasoning is the assertion that the US cannot credibly be blamed for all 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/11/ixopinion.html]
</div>


At the same time, another poet, [[Elizabeth F. Ellet]], became enamored with Poe and became jealous of Osgood.<ref name=Meyers190/> Though, in a letter to [[Sarah Helen Whitman]], he called her love for him "loathsome" and he "could do nothing but repel [it] with scorn", he printed many of her poems to him in the ''[[Broadway Journal]]'' while he was its editor.<ref>Moss, 212</ref> Ellet was known for being meddlesome and vindictive<ref>Silverman, 288</ref> and, while visiting the Poe household in late January 1846, she saw one of Osgood's personal letters to Poe.<ref name=Meyers191>Meyers, 191</ref> According to Ellet, Virginia pointed out "fearful paragraphs" in Osgood's letter.<ref name=Moss213>Moss, 213</ref> Ellet contacted Osgood and suggested she should be fearful of her indiscretions and ask Poe to return her letters.<ref name=Meyers191/> motivated either by jealousy or by a desire to cause scandal.<ref name=Moss213/> On her behalf, Osgood sent [[Margaret Fuller]] and [[Anne Lynch Botta]] to ask Poe to return her letters. Angered by their interference, Poe called them "Busy-bodies" and suggested that Ellet had better "look after her ''own'' letters", suggesting indiscretion on her part.<ref name=Silverman290>Silverman, 290</ref> One such letter includes the imperfect German ''Ich habe einen Brief fur Sie—wollen Sie gefalligst heute lassen?''<ref>Moss, 219</ref> One part translates to "Call for it at her residence this evening", a phrase presumably meant to be seductive, though Poe ignored it or did not understand it.<ref>Silverman, 289</ref> He then gathered up these letters from Ellet and left them at her house.<ref name=Meyers191/>
Because Niall Ferguson has a reputation as a biased commentator, I believe it would be useful to refer to others who say the US is not 100% responsible for the abuses of governments it is involved with. If there are studies showing that US involvement has lead to better human-rights outcomes than if the US had not been involved, these would support the opposing view.


Though these letters had already been returned to her, Ellet asked her brother "to ''demand of me the letters''".<ref name=Silverman290/> Her brother, Colonel William Lummis did not believe that Poe had already returned them and threatened to kill him. In order to defend himself, Poe requested a pistol from [[Thomas Dunn English]].<ref name=Meyers191/> English, a friend of Poe and minor writer who was a trained doctor and lawyer, did not believe that Poe had already returned the letters and, in fact, believed they had never existed.<ref name=Silverman290/> The easiest way out of the predicament, he said, "was a retraction of unfounded charges."<ref>Moss, 220</ref> Angered at being called a liar, Poe pushed English into a fistfight. Poe claimed he was triumphant in the fight, though English claimed otherwise, but it is believed that Poe's face was badly cut by one of English's rings.<ref name=Meyers191/> In Poe's version, he said, "I gave E. a flogging which he will remember to the day of his death." Either way, the fight further sparked gossip over the Osgood affair.<ref>Silverman, 291</ref>
I also noticed that the article has some counterarguments embedded in the "opposing views" section. These should get a proper airing. They should have proper citations, and the language should be carefully written to make it clear exactly what is being claimed.


Osgood's husband stepped in and threatened to sue Ellet unless she formally apologized for what she was implying. She retracted her statements in a letter to Osgood saying, "The letter shown me by Mrs Poe ''must have been a forgery'' created by Poe himself.<ref>Moss, 215</ref> She put all the blame on Poe, suggesting the incident was because Poe was "intemperate and subject to acts of lunacy."<ref name=Silverman292>Silverman, 292</ref> Ellet spread the rumor of Poe's insanity, which was taken up by other enemies of Poe and reported in newspapers. The St. Louis ''Reveille'' reported: "A rumor is in circulation in New York, to the effect that Mr. Edgar A. Poe, the poet and author, has been deranged, and his friends are about to place him under the charge of Dr. Brigham of the Insane Retreat at Utica."<ref>Meyers, 192</ref> The scandal eventually died down when Osgood reunited with her husband.<ref name=Silverman292/> Virginia, however, had been very affected by the scandal. Anonymous letters about the alleged indiscretions of her husband were sent to Virginia as early as July 1845. It is presumed that Ellet was involved with these letters and Virginia was so disturbed by them that she allegedly declared on her deathbed that "Mrs. E. had been her murderer."<ref>Moss, 213–214</ref>
====Counter Arguments====
<div style="background-color: #d3e9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
Critics of these arguments claim that the US does not take strong enough action to limit human rights violations by US-supported governments.{{citation needed}} Others claim that semi-transparent, or non-transparent United States government agencies, such as the C.I.A. have sometimes rendered misleading intelligence or failed to implement the policies of elected government officials, thereby usurping constitutional authority.{{citation needed}} Still others claim that elected and appointed officials routinely approve misleading intelligence and unsavory operations, then deny all knowledge of the abuses when they eventually come to light.{{citation needed}}
</div>


== Japan ==
===Illness===
[[Image:VirginiaPoeBedroom.jpg|thumb|left|Virginia Poe's bedroom at the Poe Cottage in the Bronx, New York, where she died.]]
Virginia had developed [[tuberculosis]], first seen in an incident some time in the middle of January 1842. While singing and playing the piano, Virginia began to bleed from the mouth, though Poe said she merely "ruptured a blood-vessel".<ref>Silverman, 179</ref> Her health declined and she became an invalid, which drove Edgar into a deep depression, especially as she occasionally showed signs of improvement. In a letter to friend John Ingram, Edgar described his resulting mental state:
<blockquote>"Each time I felt all the agonies of her death—and at each accession of the disorder I loved her more dearly & clung to her life with more desperate pertinacity. But I am constitutionally sensitive—nervous in a very unusual degree. I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity."<ref>Meyers, 208</ref></blockquote>


Her condition may have been what prompted the Poe family to move in the hopes of finding a healthier environment for her. They moved several times throughout [[Philadelphia]] in the early 1840s, their last home in that city now preserved as the [[Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site]] in [[Spring Garden District, Pennsylvania|Spring Garden]].<ref name=Silverman183>Silverman, 183</ref>
<div style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
{{main|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}}
Some legal scholars, [[historians]], other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the [[nuclear war|nuclear attack]]s against the [[Empire of Japan]] at the end of [[World War II]]. The '''atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki','' remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the [[20th Century]]. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Frey
| first =Robert S.
| title = The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond
| publisher =University Press of America
| date =2004
| id = ISBN 0761827439 }} Reviewed at:
{{cite journal
| last = Rice
| first =Sarah
| title =The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)
| journal =Harvard Human Rights Journal
| volume =Vol. 18
| date =2005
| url = http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Genocidal.shtml
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
| last = Dower
| first =John
| title =The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory
| journal =Diplomatic History
| volume =Vol. 19
| issue =no. 2
| date =1995
| url =
| accessdate = }}</ref>
The role of the bombings in [[Surrender of Japan|Japan's surrender]], as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, [[University of Chicago]] historian [[Bruce Cumings]] states there is a consensus among historians to [[Martin Sherwin]]'s statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Cumings
| first = Bruce
| title = Parallax Visions
| publisher =University Press of Duke
| date = 1999
| pages = 54
| id = }}
{{cite book
| last = Sherwin
| first = Martin
| title = A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance
| publisher =
| date = 1974
| id = }}
</ref>


In May 1846, the family (Edgar, Virginia, and her mother, Maria) moved to a small [[cottage]] in [[Fordham, New York]], about fourteen miles outside the city.<ref>Meyers, 322</ref> In the only surviving letter from Poe to Virginia, dated [[June 12]], [[1846]], he urged her to remain optimistic: "Keep up your heart in all hopelessness, and trust yet a little longer." In his recent loss of the ''Broadway Journal'', the only magazine Poe ever owned, he said, "I should have lost my courage ''but for you''—my darling little wife you are my ''greatest'' and ''only'' stimulus now to battle with this uncongenial, unsatisfactory and ungrateful life."<ref name=Meyers203>Meyers, 203</ref> By November of that year, her condition was hopeless.<ref>Silverman, 323</ref> Her symptoms included irregular appetite, flushed cheeks, unstable pulse, night sweats, high fever, sudden chills, shortness of breath, chest pains, coughing and spitting up blood.<ref name=Meyers203/>
The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. <ref>{{cite web | title=Atomic Bomb: Decision — Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945 | url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html | accessmonthday= August 6 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.<ref>
{{cite book
| last = Eisenhower
| first = Dwight D.
| authorlink =Dwight D. Eisenhower
| title = The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956
| publisher = Doubleday & Company
| date =1963
| pages = pp. 312-313
| id = }}</ref><ref name="Hiroshima: Quotes">
{{cite web
| title=Hiroshima: Quotes
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref>
<ref name="Bard Memorandum">
{{cite web
| title=Bard Memorandum
| url=http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html
| accessmonthday = May 8
| accessyear = 2006 }}</ref>
<ref>
{{cite web
| title=Decision: Part I
| url=http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
| accessmonthday = August 6
| accessyear= 2005 }}</ref><ref name = "CD"> {{cite journal
| first =Robert
| last =Freeman
| coauthors =
| year =2006
| month =August 6
| title =Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?
| journal =CommonDreams.org
| volume =
| issue =
| pages =
| id =
| url =http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw
| title = United States Strategic Bombing Survey; Summary Report
| accessmonthday = July 28
| accessyear = 2006
| author =
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| date =
| year = 1946
| month =
| format =
| work =
| publisher = United States Government Printing Office
| pages = pg. 26
}}</ref>
Historian [[Howard Zinn]] wrote, "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html]
Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:
{{cquote|''The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?''}}
Similarly, [[Michael Walzer]] wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."<ref>{{cite journal
| author = Walzer, Michael
| name = Dissent Magazine
| title = Five Questions About Terrorism
| publisher = Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc.
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/LpB/Lehre/WS%2002-03/Walzer%20on%20Terror.pdf
| volume = 49
| issue = 1
| accessdate=2007-07-11}}</ref>
Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at [[Binghamton University]] and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at [[Cornell University]], author of “''War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library)'',” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively '''the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."''[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310] He also wrote, "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."
Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).
Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, [[Hugo Chavez]] paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, ''"the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history."'' [http://www.watchingamerica.com/radiorebelde000001.html]
Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at [[Princeton University]] has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of [[state terrorism]]. He states that ''“The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.”'' Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:
{{cquote|Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets (Falk, State Terrrorism versus Humanitarian Law in War and State Terrorism).}}
These claims have prompted historian [[Robert Newman]], a supporter of the bombings, to argue that the practice of terrorism is justified in some cases.<ref>{{cite book
| last = Newman
| first = Robert
| authorlink =
| title = Enola Gay and the Court of History (Frontiers in Political Communication)
| publisher = Peter Lang Publishing
| date =2004
| id = ISBN 0-8204-7457-6}}</ref>


[[Nathaniel Parker Willis]], a friend of Poe's and an influential editor, along with others published an announcement on [[December 30]], [[1846]], requesting help for the family, though his facts were not entirely correct:<ref name=Meyers202>Meyers, 202</ref>
{{reflist}}
{{quote|Illness of Edgar A. Poe. —We regret to learn that this gentleman and his wife are both dangerously ill with the consumption, and that the hand of misfortune lies heavily on their temporal affairs. We are sorry to mention the fact that they are so far reduced as to be barely able to obtain the necessaries of life. That is, indeed, a hard lot, and we do hope that the friends and admirers of Mr. Poe will come promptly to his assistance in his bitterest hour of need.<ref name=Silverman324>Silverman, 324</ref>}}
</div>


Willis, who had not corresponded with Poe for two years and had since lost his own wife, was one of his greatest supporters in this period. He sent Poe and his wife an inspirational Christmas book, ''The Marriage Ring; or How to Make a Home Happy''.<ref name=Silverman324/>
== Edits ==


The announcement was similar to one made for Poe's mother [[Eliza Poe]] during her last stages of tuberculosis.<ref name=Meyers202/> Other newspapers picked up on the announcement, including this one: "Great God! ...is it possible, that the literary people of the Union, will let poor Poe perish by starvation and lean faced beggary in New York? For so we are led to believe, from frequent notices in the papers, stating that Poe and his wife are both down upon a bed of misery, death, and disease, with not a ducat in the world.<ref>Silverman, 324</ref> The ''[[Saturday Evening Post]]'' asserted that Virginia was in a hopeless condition and that Poe had no friends. "It is said that Edgar A. Poe is lying dangerously with brain fever, and that his wife is in the last stages of consumption—they are without money and without friends."<ref>Meyers, 203</ref> Even [[Hiram Fuller]], who Poe had previously sued for [[defamation|libel]], attempted to garner support for Poe and his wife in the ''New York Mirror''. "We, whom he has quarrelled with, will take the lead", he wrote.<ref name=Silverman324/>
1. Remove the uncited paragraph in the lead.


Virginia was tended to by 25-year old Marie Louise Shew. Shew knew medical care from her father, a doctor. She provided Virginia with a [[comforter]] as her only other cover was Edgar's old military [[cloak]].<ref name=Silverman326>Silverman, 326</ref>
2. Add El Salvador


===Death===
3. Add Japan
[[Image:Poe's grave Baltimore MD.jpg|thumb|right|Memorial marker to Virginia Clemm, Maria Clemm, and Edgar Allan Poe in Baltimore, Maryland]]
On [[January 29]], [[1847]], Poe wrote to Marie Louise Shew: "My poor Virginia still lives, although failing fast and now suffering much pain."<ref name=Meyers206>Meyers, 206</ref>
Virginia died the next day, [[January 30]], [[1847]],<ref>Krutch, 169</ref> after five years of illness. Shew helped in organizing her [[funeral]], even purchasing her [[coffin]]. Shew may have also painted the only image of Virginia, a water color done after her death.<ref name=Silverman327>Silverman, 327</ref> Her death was announced in several newspapers. The New York ''Daily Tribune'' and the ''Herald'' on [[February 1]], [[1847]] carried the simple [[obituary]]: "On Saturday, the 30th ult., of pulmonary consumption, in the 25th year of her age, VIRGINIA ELIZA, wife of EDGAR A. POE."<ref name=Silverman326/> Though now buried at [[Westminster Hall and Burying Ground]], Virginia was originally buried in a [[burial vault|vault]] owned by the Valentine family, owners of the Fordham cottage, on the day of her funeral<ref name=Silverman327/> [[February 2]], [[1847]]<ref name=Meyers206/>


In [[1875]], the same year Edgar was reburied, the cemetery in which she lay was destroyed and her remains were almost forgotten. An early Poe biographer, William Gill, gathered her bones and stored them in a box he hid under his bed.<ref>Meyers, 263</ref> Gill's story was reported in the ''[[Boston Herald]]'' twenty-seven years after the event. Gill says that he had visited the Fordham cemetery in 1883 at exactly the moment that the [[sexton (office)|sexton]] Dennis Valentine held Virginia's bones in his shovel, ready to throw them away as unclaimed. Gill took the remains and corresponded with Neilson Poe and John Prentiss Poe in Baltimore, and arranged to bring the box down to be laid on Edgar's left side in a small bronze casket. Virginia's remains were finally buried with her husband's in [[1885]] on January 19 — the seventy-sixth anniversary of her husband's birth and nearly ten years after his current monument was erected. The same man who served as sexton during Edgar's original burial and his exhumations and reburials was also present at the rites which brought his body to rest with Virginia and Virginia's mother Maria Clemm.<ref>Miller, John C. "[http://www.eapoe.org/pstudies/ps1970/p1974204.htm The Exhumations and Reburials of Edgar and Virginia Poe and Mrs. Clemm]," from ''Poe Studies'', vol. VII, no. 2, December 1974, p. 47</ref>
4. Replace Opposing views


==Appearance==
5. Rename the article to State terrorism by the United States
Only one image of Virginia is known to exist, painted based on her corpse.<ref name=Meyers206/> Accounts of Virginia's appearance vary. She had dark hair and violet eyes with skin so pale it was described as "pure white",<ref>Krutch, 55–56</ref> causing a "bad complexion that spoiled her looks".<ref name=Silverman82/> One visitor to the Poe family noted, "the rose-tint upon her cheek was too bright", possibly a symptom of her illness.<ref>Silverman, 182</ref> Another visitor in Fordham wrote, "Mrs. Poe looked very young; she had large black eyes, and a pearly whiteness of complexion, which was a perfect pallor. Her pale face, her brilliant eyes, and her raven hair gave her an unearthly look."<ref>Meyers, 204</ref> That unearthly look was mentioned by others who suggested that made her look not quite human.<ref name=Krutch56>Krutch, 56</ref> William Gowans, who once lodged with the family, described Virginia as a woman of "matchless beauty and loveliness, her eye could match that of any [[houri]], and her face defy the genius of a [[Antonio Canova|Canova]] to imitate".<ref>Meyers, 92–93</ref> She may have been a little plump<ref name=Krutch56/> with a slight double chin. In her watercolor portrait, her eyes are shown to be hazel.<ref name=Meyers206/> Many contemporary accounts as well as modern biographers remark on her child-like appearance even in the last years of her life.<ref name=Meyers206/><ref name=Krutch56/><ref name=Sova52/>


==Impact and influence on Poe==
== Original Research Violations ==
Virginia's death had a strong impact on Poe. After her death Poe was deeply saddened for several months. A friend said of him, "the loss of his wife was a sad blow to him. He did not seem to care, after she was gone, whether he lived an hour, a day, a week or a year; she was his all."<ref>Meyers, 207</ref> A year after her death, he had written to a friend that he had experience the greatest evil a man can experience when, he said, "a wife, whom I loved as no man ever loved before" had gotten sick.<ref name=Sova53/> While she was struggling to recover, Poe turned to alcohol after abstaining for quite some time. How often and how much he drank is a controversial issue, debated from Poe's lifetime to more modern biographers.<ref name=Silverman183/><ref>{{cite web|author=Thomas Poulter|url=http://www.usna.edu/EnglishDept/poeperplex/alcoholp.htm|title=Edgar Allan Poe and Alcohol|accessdate=2008-03-02}}</ref> Poe referred to it as his own illness and found the cure to it "in the ''death'' of my wife. This I can & do endure as becomes a man—it was the horrible never-ending oscillation between hope & despair which I could ''not'' longer have endured without the total loss of reason."<ref>Moss, 233</ref>


Poe pursued several women after Virginia's death, including Nancy Richmond of [[Lowell, Massachusetts]], [[Sarah Helen Whitman]] of [[Providence, Rhode Island]], and childhood sweetheart [[Sarah Elmira Royster]] in Richmond. Even so, Frances Osgood, who Poe also attempted to woo, believed "that she [Virginia] was the only woman whom he ever loved."<ref>Krutch, 57</ref>
The article is titled “Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States”. To the degree that the article integrates the text with this title, it has value. Much of the material however is actually original research attempting to prove state terrorism and this material has strong POV elements that deny the WP NPOV policy.


=== An analogy: ===
===References in literature===
Many of Poe's works are interpreted as being partially autobiographical and much of his work is believed to reflect Virginia's long struggle with tuberculosis and eventual death. The most discussed example is "[[Annabel Lee]]". The poem, which depicts a dead young bride and her mourning lover, is often assumed to have been inspired by Virginia, though other women in Poe's life are potential candidates including [[Frances Sargent Osgood]]<ref>Meyers, 244</ref> and [[Sarah Helen Whitman]].<ref>Sova, 12</ref> A similar poem, "[[Ulalume]]", is also believed to be a memorial tribute to Virginia.<ref>Meyers, 211</ref>
OJ Simpson could have been the subject of an article right after the double murder titled “Allegations of murder committed by the OJ Simpson”. He was initially not charged for any crime, a situation analogous for the allegations in this article because the US has not been charged for state terrorism. We could immediately find many reliable sources SPECULATING that (1) he would be charged, and that he (2) would be convicted, and (3) that he was guilty of a double murder. We would find no reliable sources that were not speculation, as is the case with the subject of our article. WHEN he was charged, only then could we move beyond mere speculation and only then could we find a reliable source that could support the allegations.


Virginia is also seen in in Poe's prose. The [[short story]] "[[Eleonora (short story)|Eleonora]]" (1842) — which features a narrator preparing to marry his cousin, with whom he lives alongside her mother — may also reference Virginia's illness. When Poe wrote it, she had just begun to show signs of her illness.<ref>Sova, 78</ref> Shortly after, the couple moved to New York City by boat and Poe published "[[The Oblong Box (short story)|The Oblong Box]]" (1844). The story, which shows a man mourning over his dead young wife while transporting her corpse by boat, seems to suggest Poe's feelings over Virginia's impending death. As the ship sinks, the husband would rather die than be separated from his wife's corpse.<ref>Silverman, 228–229</ref> The short story "[[Ligeia]]", with the slow, lingering death of its title character, may also be inspired by Virginia.<ref>Hoffman, 255–256</ref> After her death, Poe also edited his first published story, "[[Metzengerstein]]", to remove the narrator's line, "I would wish all I love to perish of that gentle disease."<ref name=Meyers206/> Poe's supposed insanity during her illness may also be reflected in his [[first-person narrative]]s "[[The Tell-Tale Heart]]", "[[The Black Cat (short story)|The Black Cat]]", and "[[The Cask of Amontillado]]".<ref name=Sova53/>
Is there any legal charge for state terrorism against the US by any judicial tribunal anywhere in the world? If so, THEN we may move beyond the mere unsupported allegation stage to the supported allegation stage. Is this the case?


==See also==
Has the US been tried on this charge, or convicted on this charge? If so, these two facts support the mere unsupported allegations we now have in the article.
*[[List of coupled cousins]]


==Notes==
:"Allegations...." was a gimme to people who were contending that the article be deleted outright, nothing more. The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted; the only thing that is open to any sort of debate is whether or not the concept of "State Terrorism" is applicable to matters of international law. The article makes it quite clear that this is, in fact, a valid concept currently being debated by the international legal establishment. It further makes clear that the facts presented here are widely attested to and uncontroversial. Thus, your ''assertion'' that they are "unsupported" is utterly laughable. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|3}}


==References==
::There is no consensus that this article presents the facts. For this reason, reliable sources are required which are presently missing. Do not revert or edit without [[WP|consensus]]. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
*Hoffman, Daniel. ''Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe''. Louisiana State University Press, 1972. ISBN 0684193701.
*Moss, Sidney P. ''Poe's Literary Battles: The Critic in the Context of His Literary Milieu''. Southern Illinois University Press, 1969.
*Meyers, Jeffrey. ''Edgar Allan Poe: His Life and Legacy''. Cooper Square Press, 1992. ISBN 0684193701.
*Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. ''The Literary History of Philadelphia''. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., 1906. ISBN 1932109455.
*Quinn, Arthur Hobson. ''Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biobraphy''. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. ISBN 0801857309
*Silverman, Kenneth. ''Edgar A. Poe: Mournful and Never-ending Remembrance''. Harper Perennial, 1991. ISBN 0060923318.


==External links==
:::"''The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted..."'' Fine, offer one example please? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
*[http://www.eapoe.org/people/poevc.htm Virginia Clemm Poe] at the Edgar Allan Poe Society online
*[http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poegnlgy.htm Poe Family Tree] at the Edgar Allan Poe Society online
*[http://www.poemuseum.org/poes_life/family_tree.html Poe's Life: Family Tree] at PoeMuseum.org


<!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] -->
::::We have [[tact]] consensus on this point. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


{{Persondata
::::: I know you have problems with your memory, so let me refresh it. Above, Stone put to sky responded to you, clearly indicating that there is explicitly not consensus on whatever [[WP:POINT|point]] you are trying to make. '''Please stop claiming to have consensus.''' I find this childish, tendentious, and disruptive. By definition, consensus does not exist because ''you'' mandate it, but as a natural part of the editorial process. Please go and re-read [[WP:CONSENSUS]] until you feel you have understood it. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
|NAME=Poe, Virgiia Eliza Clemm

|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Clemm, Virginia Eliza
=== the question of reliable sources ===
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=Wife of Edgar Allan Poe
The question of reliable sources comes in regard to what these reliable sources state. The sources are not challenged, but the context of what they state is. Is there one reliable source within the article that can support the allegations made? Presently they all appear to be mere unsupported allegations and there seems that not one offers evidence that the US has ever been charged in relation to state terrorism or even that this has ever been considered.
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[August 22]], [[1822]]

|PLACE OF BIRTH=
Since the US has never been even charged with this, and there is not one reliable source to claim that it has, the unsupported allegations are all like the unsupported allegations against OJ Simpson before he was arrested and charged, premature. While these unsupported allegations are from reliable sources, they remain mere unsupported allegations.
|DATE OF DEATH=[[January 30]], [[1847]]

|PLACE OF DEATH=
:There are no facts in this article that are contested; to extend your metaphor into an accurate representation, it would be as if thousands of people actually saw O.J. Simpson murdering his wife and then, in his own defense, O.J. claimed that it was in fact all for her own good and in no way constituted a crime. That is what you are arguing: that hundreds of thousands of people can attest to the the crimes and actions cited in this article, that these people can clearly peg these actions upon agents who were working for, financed by, and/or trained by the United States, and yet despite the horrificly brutal nature of the actions people like you still want to claim that they are not crimes and do not constitute terrorist actions. Whatever. The page isn't here for your pleasure; it's here to state facts.
}}
: The simple fact is that these acts occurred, they occurred with the knowledge, approval, support, and/or direct involvement of the United States, and these actions are clearly crimes according to whatever definition of law you or any brethren of chaos would like to invent. The page does nothing more than remark that there are people who recount this evidence and use these arguments in defense of these allegations. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::You misunderstand [[WP:Consensus]], please review the section on changing consensus.

::Take [[Global Warming]] as an example of how to edit an excellent controversial article. What article might you suggest that I read as a model?

::"it would be as if thousands of people actually saw O.J. Simpson murdering his wife and then, in his own defense, O.J. claimed that it was in fact all for her own good and in no way constituted a crime." An encyclopedia would wait for the indictment, trial, and conviction. An encyclopedia would not interview the witnesses and list the claims of each. You are confusing a personal blog with an encyclopedia?

::"''The simple fact is that these acts occurred, they occurred with the knowledge, approval, support, and/or direct involvement of the United States, and these actions are clearly crimes according to whatever definition of law you or any brethren of chaos would like to invent.''" You are here to tell the TRUTH? You are violating WP policy because the TRUTH is more important? The definition of the laws regarding terrorisim is relevant to allegations of state terrorism, don'tcha think? Who are my "brethren"? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::We now have tacit consensus on this point. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Original Research Deletions ===
All suggestions and implications that the US was ever involved in any state terrorism lack a reliable source for this, because no charge has ever been formally made anywhere. For this reason the WP policy for aggressive deletion applies to much of this article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::: No, evidence that a formal charge has been made is not the delimiting requirement for an article such as this. It is enough that a significant number of charges have been made by notable and verifiable sources such as academic scholars and human rights organizations. In large part, it is representative of an academic discourse. There are books and article written about the subject. If you have a problem with that rationale your next step should be to take for a RFC (request for comment) or higher up in the wikipedia administration to get a ruling. It should be noted that you started with these mass deletions before any attempt to discuss your issues, and you are continuing to engage in destructive editing of material that was arrived at through consensus.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:You find the edits destructive? In what sense? Mostly I have been reading the citations and deleting those that are not supportive of the text. If you want to read them, you will find that they all deserved deletion. Which one or ones do you dispute.

:We agree, a formal charge need not have been made for an article such as this. If you read above I stated this as well. The problem here is the lack of ''any'' reliable sources to support the claims. There are many reliable sources that ''speculate'' about this topic. The article however ''does not identify these as unproven speculation''. As the Talk (above) states, this article is engaged in projection of a political POV by amassing wads of "circumstantial evidence" and presenting an ''argument'' rather than presenting an ''encyclopedia article''. This article needs to accurately identify all of this "circumstantial evidence" as unproven speculation. Why begin with an RFC? Are you unwilling to collaberate to improve this article? If so, I will take your advice but this is a waste of everyone's time. Why not just work to make the article more accurate and useful?

:If there is any "circumstantial evidence" that you believe is supported by a reliable source that is not mere speculation, please identify it here. I missed it. A formal legal charge for terrorism would of course be one way to move beyond mere speculation, but there may be other ways. What other type of confirmation do you suggest?

:OR deletions do not require consensus, in fact WP encourages the aggressive deletion of clear OR. I am seeking perspective here, in talk, before implementing the aggressive deletions required by WP. The deletion of citations that do not support the text does not require consensus either. There is no reason however to simply aggressively delete the OR in this article without discussion - as this would like lead to a revert war and a lack of collaberation.

:Is there a problem if we accurately identify all of the claims in the article as unsupported speculation? If we label it correctly, then the title and the text will be brought into synchrony. The article is about allegations only, and so need not prove any facts. The problem is that the article has a POV slant that leads the reader to believe that the charges are beyond mere unproven speculation. To move beyond mere unproven speculation, there needs to be a reliable source for this. What source is this? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::: It seems BernardL has responded above. Tacit consensus has not been reached. Please stop pretending that you are the sole arbiter of consensus. Consensus is not a prize that can be won by out-arguing every other editor and by constantly posting longwinded arguments on the talk page. It is something which emerges through ''cooperative editing''. So, I dispute this claim of consensus, as well as every other claim of "tacit consensus" on this page. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

=== US Immigration and Extradition Policy as Terrorism ===
A citation that claimed to "RICARDO Alarcón, president of Cuba’s National Assembly of People’s Power, affirmed that the United States government is an accomplice and protector of terrorism." Reading the text of the article suggests that Alarcón defined US Immigration and Extradition Policy as Terrorism. When he accused the US of terrorism, he did not mean anything resembling the definitions of terrorism used within this article. The citation was thus deleted because it is not about an actual allegation of terrorism but of US Immigration and Extradition Policy. It will be deleted again, because there is nothing in the talk section to explain the revert. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:The text of the article says that ''Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba''. The reference attaches to this sentence, and this is precisely what Alarcón is affirming in the reference. Am I missing something? [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, you are missing something. Read the citation. He is accusing the US of terrorism ''because he disagrees with US immigration policy''. We need a reliable source that US immigration policy is terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

During his exchange with the visitors, Alarcón referred to the deliberate delays to the trial of notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles in El Paso, Texas, and the struggle for the liberation of the five Cubans anti-terrorist fighters imprisoned in the United States.

:Almost correct. The US has only tried the "notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles" for an immigration violation. The "notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles" apparently never violated any other US law. I accept that Luis Posada Carriles was a notorious terrorist, at least that reliable sources claim this. But why is he in this article at all? Why is his immigration trial in the article?

:This article is about allegations of state terrorism by the US. Luis Posada Carriles has (apparently) not been accused of US state terrorism, but of doing it for Latin American nations. Why is he in the article if there is no US state terrorism association but only an immigration proceeding?

:I know nothing yet about "the struggle for the liberation of the five Cubans anti-terrorist fighters imprisoned in the United States. It doesn't sound like they have anything to do with allegations of US state terrorism either? Please explain this link? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:::My suggestion is -- since yo openly admit to knowing nothing about these matters -- that you should stop editing until you do. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Will you please address this issue? Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section due to the lack of discussion on the point raised. Does anyone have anything to add? There needs to be some link to the article's topic for this to remain. For example: a link between US immigration policy as terrorism would do this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::With an absence of comment, tacit consensus is presumed. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Presume whatever you like. In reality, there is no tacit consensus. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::This is all that you needed to add to this section then? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Luis Posada Carriles ===
Is the inclusion of Luis Posada Carriles within this article orginal research? I have read ten or so articles about him and can find no link to any alleged act of terrorism by the US. There are allegations of terrorism after he served in the CIA and US Army, but these are for Venezuela and other nations, not the US. Is there a reliable source that suggests that he had any role in state terrorism by the US? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Carriles has been accused of planning terrorist acts involving the bombing of hotels in Cuba and the Cuban airliner in Barbados. That's the Cuban connection. While I did not have a hand in editing the Cuba stuff, it seems an important volume is Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism against Cuba, an anthology featuring essays by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, William Blum, Nadine Gordimer, Michael Parenti, Leonard Weinglass and others.[[http://www.492cafe.org/audio/events/2006_10_06-cuba5/]]. The president of the National Lawyer's Guild, Michael Avery has specifically covered the topic of Luis Posada Carriles in the recording here [[http://www.492cafe.org/audio/events/2006_10_06-cuba5/04-Avery-1.2.4.mp3]]. After listening to the talk, which encompasses the training of Carides, his continued support by the U.S. even when the FBI and the CIA had knowledge of his plans to commit terrorist acts, and the impunity granted to him thereafter, I fail to see how anyone could deny that allegations of significant U.S. complicity in his actions are not worth hearing.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::The key to supporting your argument is to offer a reliable source that links this terrorist to the US after he left the CIA and moved to Venezuela. This source is lacking, which by itself makes the entire section OR.

::::The next issue is if the source cited is ''speculating'' - or if the source can ''confirm'' a US connection with this terrorist. This distinction is important for the text of the article. Presently it reads as though there was a proven link to the US.

::::I have no problem at all with including this text, if (1) there are reliable sources and (2) they are properly characterized as speculative or confirming. The best confirmation would be a court verdict that he was a terrorist employed by the US, but perhaps you will discover some other means of confirmation such as a confession. The source cited was reliable, and it confirmed that he was a CIA employee prior to becoming a terrorist.

::::Alternatively, if you can establish that the Bay of Pigs was not a military invasion of Cuba, but was a form of terrorism, then the above need not apply. He is reliably established to have been involved.

::::I will be away for a few days, but will respond then. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::"''I fail to see how anyone could deny that allegations of significant U.S. complicity in his actions are not worth hearing.''" Fine. All you need is a reliable source to establish ''state terrorism''. Presently there are only reliable sources that establish that the US immigration policies are challenged by Cuba. There is one citation that alleges that US immigration policy is terrorism. Are we debating if US immigration policy qualifies as "state terrorism? If not, what are we debating? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::With an absence of comment, tacit consensus is presumed. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is considerably more than the Cuba challenge. The U.S. is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which prohibits any country giving safe haven or assistance to people involved in present or past terrorist activities. President Bush admitted giving safe haven to Carriles was an act of terrorism when he stated in October 2002 "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves". [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 14:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Has the UNSC found that your allegation is true? Do you have a reliable source that says that the UNSC has found: "The U.S. is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which prohibits any country giving safe haven or assistance to people involved in present or past terrorist activities."?

:Has Carriles been convicted of anything? What and where? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

=== American military interventions ===
''"Defenders of U.S. policy argue that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression,[5] and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies.[6]"'' American military interventions are not synonomous with state terrorism, are they? The citations offered are irrelevant because they defend American military interventions and not the subject of the article, state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are parsing the paragraphs wrong. Clearly there is a dichotomy set up between the acts which are considered terrorism by the rest of the world, and the U.S. defense of those acts as "military interventions". There is nothing in here that makes any categorical statement about U.S. military interventions, and your attempt to parse this particular sentence in that way suggests that your reading skills need to undergo a bit more development before you take it upon yourself to start authoring an encyclopedia article. ~~!~~


:Who wrote that above?

:Please address the question? Does anyone assert that this text complies with [[WP|NPOV]]? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

=== American hypocrisy ===
Is there a need to discuss this topic in this article? ''"Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied.[3][4]"'' Does anyone speak for this text? I challenge the relevancy of hypocrisy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:I have already replied to this challenge below. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 15:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::I have not found any reliable source that establishes that hypocrisy is a form of [[state terrorism]]. Please add it here? Without it I will assert [[tacit]] consensus. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::An assertion which would, of course, mean nothing. There is a strong ''explicit'' consensus on this page to reject any claims of "tacit consensus" so any attempt to assert "tacit consensus" is quite irrelevant, here or anywhere else.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Please read [[WP|Consensus]]. You need to participate in the subject being discussed, need to try to reach consensus. If you do so, ''then'' there may be no consensus.

::::Let's do this the easy way? I am not following your objection.

::::*Do we a reliable source that hypocrisy is a form of state terrorism?
::::*If so, do we agree to write the article so that the reader clearly understands that state terrorism really means hypocrisy for the related text? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Where does the article state that hypocrisy is state terrorism? Nowhere. What is the problem? I'm not sure. We all know what the title of the article is, but that does not mean that every single sentence needs to relate to the title precisely, i.e. that every sentence needs to be an allegation of US terrorism. Explaining that some critics who accuse the US of state terrorism see their foreign policy rhetoric as different from their real actions is highly, highly relevant info to this article. There is no reliable source that says hypocrisy is terrorism but of course that is neither here nor there since no one has ever said (in the article or on the talk page) that it is. You acknowledged at some point that you use straw men as a rhetorical tactic (it's a bad tactic FYI) so I hope you are not doing that here.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::*''"We all know what the title of the article is, but that does not mean that every single sentence needs to relate to the title precisely, i.e. that every sentence needs to be an allegation of US terrorism."'' Agreed. But every sentence ''does'' need to directly relate. In many cases this connection is unclear.

:::::::*''"Explaining that some critics who accuse the US of state terrorism see their foreign policy rhetoric as different from their real actions is highly, highly relevant info to this article."'' I do not understand why. Such has been the action of ''every state'' into antiquity? Can you name one exception? Why is this relevant if every state in every age has done so?

:::::::*''"You acknowledged at some point that you use straw men as a rhetorical tactic (it's a bad tactic FYI) so I hope you are not doing that here."'' If you read WP policy on the Straw Man, it is ''sometimes'' a valid method.

:::::::You neglected to address my questions: (1) Do we a reliable source that hypocrisy is a form of state terrorism? (2) If so, do we agree to write the article so that the reader clearly understands that state terrorism really means hypocrisy for the related text? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I answered your first question quite clearly when I said "There is no reliable source that says hypocrisy is terrorism." Not sure how you missed that. Obviously thus my answer to number two is no. Hypocrisy is not terrorism, no one has suggested it is, let's drop it.

::::::::So the question is whether we are allowed to say that commentators who accuse the US of state terrorism view the US rhetoric about anti-terrorism as hypocritical given the US's real actions. I think it is very relevant to the article and "directly relates" to the issue at hand (I would not be averse to a re-wording of "hypocrisy" to something similar but perhaps less loaded). You disagree with me and there we are. Perhaps others will weigh in, but please don't bring up the "hypocrisy is state terrorism" point again. It has no bearing on the debate since the article does not say that.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Bay of Pigs ===
* Cuba sues U.S. for billions, alleging 'war' damages. CNN (1999-06-02). Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
:An error that runs through the Cuban section is that the Bay of Pigs invasion was actually not a military invasion but was state terrorism. Clearly (from my pov) this is an unsupportable assertion, but I am open to hearing from anyone who believes that it was state terrorism. Does anyone believe this?

:I propose to delete the CNN citation because it only discusses the Bay of Pigs and does not mention state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tricky case. It was certainly a covert operation. Do we have any reliable sources calling it state terrorism? // [[User:Liftarn|Liftarn]] ([[User talk:Liftarn|talk]])

:This is another straw man tactic, Raggz. Where does the article mention Bay of Pigs, and why do you object to it? Why do you object to the CNN source? It certainly mentions the Bay of Pigs, but it also includes statements such as the following:
::''And it details a history of "terrorism" allegedly supported by the United States, from the 1976 blowing up of a Cuban plane, killing all 73 on board, to the 1997 bombing campaign at Havana hotels that killed an Italian tourist.''
:You have misrepresented the source, and indeed the article, as though they only referred to the Bay of Pigs. By the way, this article only mentions the Bay of Pigs once, and not as an example of state-sponsored terrorism. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::The Cuban material lacks even one citation connecting the US with state terrorism. For this reason it is all OR. Does the CNN article state that the US was involved in state terrorism? I read it carefully, and did not see any such text. I deleted a lot of references that only referred to the Bay of Pigs, which had nothing at all to do with terrorism. The writer seemed to think that it did.

::I don't recall the word "allegedly" as a US link, but I could be in error. If it is not there it is OR. If it is there, does the article make it clear that the link is mere speculation? If not, it then deserves deletion or revision. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:::'''Straw Man''' I do sometimes employ a version of the [[straw man]] as a rhetorical device for the purpose of seeking consensus. ''"However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion."'' In my opinion, any honest rhetorical means to reach [[WP|Consensus]] is a good thing. If your claims are ''improperly'' oversimplified, merely correct this.

:::[[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]]: ''You have misrepresented the source, and indeed the article, as though they only referred to the Bay of Pigs. By the way, this article only mentions the Bay of Pigs once, and not as an example of state-sponsored terrorism.'' I would have to go back a ways to evaluate your concern, and I will if you insist. However there are no reliable sources for ''anything'' related to Cuba that alleges [[state terrorism]] except for US immigration policy. Please give us an example of one that does make this connection? Without a link to whatever may or may not have happened decades ago in Cuba, how do we establish [[state terrorism]] - and by what definition? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Just so you know, it does not make me feel more inclined to cooperate with you, and so is therefore not in the interest of consensus-building. Please knock it off. State your case honestly, and be willing to be overruled. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Cuba is suing the US, as a party to a lawsuit, their staements on the subject of the suit may be presumed prejudiced. No connection between the Bay of Pigs and state terrorism by the US has been established by a single reliable source. We appear to have tacit consensus for some serious pruning of orginal research. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: No tacit consensus. I have responded to you, and you openly admit to not having read the article or the source carefully. So please, where are you pulling this magical consensus from? [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Now Silly rabbit, you have invented [[magical]] consensus? I like this... Cool.

::::::May the plantiff in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit be considered to be a reliable source when they are reporting on their own lawsuit as a journalist? Granma has this role for this topic? If so, is Granma a reliable source? I say no. Do we now have [[magical]] consensus? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I have addressed your original concern (a CNN cite). Now you appear to be inventing concerns which were not even part of this thread. What are you going on about this time Raggz? [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Raggz, please stop it. Silly rabbit was not "inventing" magical consensus--the user was characterizing your assertion of "consensus" as "magical," i.e. not real. I don't know whether or not your misreading of SR's comment was willful but I don't really care. You are editing in a disruptive fashion when you make comments like your previous one. Stop. Thanks.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, no more [[magical]] consensus. She used it, I liked it, but you don't, so fine. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The fact that you ignored my substantive point about your wild misreading of SR's comment (and your further obfuscation by claiming that SR "liked" magical consensus) is duly noted.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::WHAT? I liked it, she said it. Maybe it is time to take a break. You seem to be getting heated up?

:::::::::::I will be happy to address your question, could you cut & paste it so I know what it is?

:::::::::::I repeat my prior question that remains unanswered: ''"May the plantiff in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit be considered to be a reliable source when they are reporting on their own lawsuit as a journalist? Granma has this role for this topic? If so, is Granma a reliable source? "'' (Unsigned comment by [[User:Raggz]], around 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Raggz, your question is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Allow me to redirect your attention to the beginning of the thread, which you had some problem with:
:* ''Cuba sues U.S. for billions, alleging 'war' damages. CNN (1999-06-02). Retrieved on 2007-07-10.''
'''This is not about a granma citation,''' so stop pretending that it is. CNN is doing the reporting, not granma. Granma is a plaintiff in the case, so they are certainly allowed to make "Allegations" (that is what plaintiffs do, after all). [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::Apologies to Raggz for misreading who "liked" the magical consensus formulation. However the point in my previous comment about misrepresenting user comments and ignoring other users who point this out still stands.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Omega 7 & Alpha 66 ===
From WP as cited: ''"Omega 7 was a small Cuban exile right-wing nationalist paramilitary terrorist group based in Florida and New York whose stated goal was to overthrow Fidel Castro. It is now said to be disbanded, its leaders imprisoned in the United States. It is considered a terrorist organization by the Cuban government as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigations. According to the FBI, Omega 7 members are mostly Bay of Pigs veterans trained in demolition, intelligence, and commando techniques. Omega 7 operated internationally but is said to have carried out most of its attacks in the US, these were mainly car bombings and direct assassinations, most of them done in a very flawless and difficult to trace manner. An internal split in the group helped the FBI to play the factions against each other leading to the imprisonment of key figures.

''These paramilitaries have been accused of plotting and carrying out numerous assassinations of Cuban communist political leaders as well as attacks on targets, including Cuban airliners, Cuban government run hotels, embassies, and ships.'' A famous brother group was Alpha 66 (still existent)."

Omega 7 and Alpha 66 members have been classified as terrorists and have been arrested by the US. While reliable sources suggest that these are terrorist organizations, are there any linking them to US state terrorism. There seem none, so I suggest deletion of the related text. Any objections? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 09:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:[[Tacit]] consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::I don't even know what part of the article is being brought up since Raggz did not explain that. But I will submit a [[pro forma]] objection to the assertion of "tacit consensus" both here and anywhere else on the page. Raggz can detail the specific passage from the article that s/he has a problem with if that user wants the discussion to continue.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Please read above? There is no linkage to the US, nor to state terrorism? There seems to be consensus for removing this material, as there seems no connection to the US, no reliable sources.

:::Your [[pro forma]] objection needs to also involve actual discussion on the topics being discussed. If you actually object, please detail your concerns? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Re-read my comment. I asked you to detail the specific passage from the article with which you have a problem--I'm not going hunting for it. Please tell us the section and quote the passage directly. Then I'll comment on it. Again, there is no consensus. If you think that no one responding to one of 50 posts you made means "consensus" then you do not understand how that policy works on a contentious page like this one. But tell me specifically what you are concerned about here and maybe you can achieve ''actual'' consensus.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::There seem to be no reliable sources that connect Omega 7 & Alpha 66 to any act of state terrorism by the US? The cites seem only to link Omega 7 & Alpha 66 to terrorism? Omega 7 & Alpha 66 are not the subject of this article. Is there linkage to the Topic? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::For the love of God, ''what specific passage in the article are you talking about?'' This is the third time I've asked you to point me to the relevant section and passage and explain your concern in that context. Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question? If you do not answer this incredibly, incredibly straightforward question with your next post here I will assume you are either intentionally obfuscating or simply unable to communicate well enough to work in a collaborative fashion on Wikipedia. I'll ask again in boldface so there is no confusion:

::::::'''What is the section of the article with which you are concerned? What is the ''specific passage'' (or passages) in that section which you see as problematic? What specifically is your problem with it?'''

::::::Please answer here, thank you.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Questionable Reliable Sources ==

===References from the first sentence===
* I challenge the citation "San Juan, Jr., E. (2007-04-28). Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity. Asian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on 2007-07-09." and assert that it is unreliable and that it is irrelevant even if reliable. Does anyone speak for it before it is deleted?

:It states "the Permanent People’s Tribunal, an international opinion court independent from any State authority, rendered a judgment of guilty for “crimes against humanity”. The Permanent People’s Tribunal is not a court in any sense but is a group of lawyers and activists who formed a discussion club not too disimilar to the discussions held in many bars worldwide. My primary issue is that it pretends to be a court, not that it issues an opinion. The opinion of this discussion group however does not merit any attention in the WP article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:: It seems noteworthy. Is there a rule somewhere that any allegation pertinent to the article must be made by an actual court? [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Not at all. If it is merely an unconfirmed allegation, it just need be described accurately. The question is there is even one reliable source that ''confirms'' that the US has been involved with state terrorism. A charge or a trial is the only way I can think of, can you offer another?

:::Fake courts pretending to be real courts are in my opinion not credible sources, do you agree? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Source seems fine to me: this is an article not a trial. It is noteworthy as an organisation and seems impartial based on the fact that the common trait is being a lawyer, not any political allegiance. The source should stay. [[User:Pexise|Pexise]] ([[User talk:Pexise|talk]]) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

::::By analogy: If I convene the "People's Scientific Tribunal" in my local Tavern, and it offers a judicial finding, would we agree to include this in the [[Global Warming]] article? This is an article about a fake trial. Can you imagine HRW holding a fake trial? No, they and similar organizations are serious and are thus reliable sources. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::On the board of directors of the AHRC:

:::::* Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer: Supreme Court Judge of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation and a well known human rights promoter, India.

:::::* Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati: Chief Justice of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation, India.

:::::* Professor Yash Ghai: Reputed Constitutional Expert and Spokesman on Human Rights, Hong Kong.

:::::* Mr. B. R. P. Bhasker: Reputed Journalist and a Trustee of Vigil India Movement, India.

:::::* Professor Byung-Sun Oh: Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, Korea

:::::* Mr. Kem Sokha: Member of National Assembly, Chairman, Commission on Human Rights and Complaints, Cambodia.

:::::* Professor Masanori Aikyo: Professor of Law at Nagoya University and Human Rights Advocate, Japan.

:::::* Mr. I. A. Rehman: Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan.

:::::* Sr. Mariani Dimaranan: Philippines Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, The Philippines.

:::::* Basil Fernando: Executive Director AHRC [[http://www.ahrchk.net/modules0df9.html?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6&cid=1]]
:::::They also appear to be a fully constituted NGO and produce annual reports (350 pages) etc. If your group of pub scientists were of this caliber and if you were constituted as a NGO, and produced regular annual and financial reports - yes, I might agree that to be a credible source.... [[User:Pexise|Pexise]] ([[User talk:Pexise|talk]]) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


* MR Webzine
:This source is clearly an advocacy source that does not meet WP standards. It describes itself as "From the first, Monthly Review spoke for socialism and against U.S. imperialism and is still doing so today... In the subsequent global upsurge against capitalism, imperialism, and the commodification of life in the sixties, Monthly Review played a global role. A generation of activists received no small part of their education from the magazine and readers of Monthly Review Press books. In the intervening years of counter-revolution, Monthly Review has kept a steady viewpoint. That point of view is the heartfelt attempt to frame the issues of the day with one set of interests foremost in mind: those of the great majority of humankind, the propertyless." Does anyone speak for MR Webzine? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Firstly, the host of the cited material is largely irrelevant unless it happens to clearly be an illegal hate site, for example an anti-arab hate site or an anti-gay screed. What matters are the author's credentials. In this case the author's credentials are as follows: "E. San Juan, Jr. was recently Fulbright Professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, and visiting professor of literature and cultural studies at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, Republic of China. He directs the Philippines Cultural Studies Center in Connecticut and helps with the Philippine Forum in New York City. His most recent books are Racism and Cultural Studies (Duke University Press) and Working Through the Contradictions (Bucknell University Press). He is currently a research fellow at the Bellagio Italy Study Center of the Rockefeller Foundation." Do you have a problem with these credentials?
::Secondly, you seem to object to Monthly Review as a source simply because it identifies itself with socialist values. MR Zine is just a spin-off of the Monthly Review institution which includes a journal and a publishing house that house that has produced very serious, respectable and influential scholarship. MRZine, to my knowledge is for the most part a repository featuring content generated largely outside its institution with only a few articles commissioned or at least as a result of the initiative of the site itself. It is much less of an advocacy group than sites such as Frontpage magazine, or specifically pro-Israeli advocacy sites such as Campus Watch, Camera, not to mention more clear-cut advocacy institutions such as The Heritage Foundation. I hope that you realize
that your argument for disqualification of MRZine necessarily implies disqualification of these sites as well, throughout Wikipedia, and their far more numerous references.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::We disagree. We will need more discussion on this topic.

::You say "you seem to object to Monthly Review as a source simply because it identifies itself with socialist values". I can assure you that this has nothing to do with it. Do socialists have different values than others? I am curious about how they differ. My concern is that it clearly states that it is an advocacy site. It will review the Heritage Foundations site and see if they claim this or not. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

* ROLAND G. SIMBULAN'S Essay, The real threat. I challenge this essay as a reliable source. Who does the fact checking required? Does anyone speak for this source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland G. Simbulan is Professor and Faculty Regent University of the Philippines. Do you dispute the facts therein? With what evidence?[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

* Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism. From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ)Cohn, Marjorie
:This citation is outdated and makes allegations of state terrorism that have been reviewed and rejected by the [[International Criminal Court]]'s prosecutor last year. The ICC investigation revealed that no proof exists for any of the crimes alleged four years ealier by this source. I accept this source to present serious research, but the ICC prosecutor's determination that the source is in serious error makes this citation dated and irrelevant. Does anyone speak for this citation? It could remain - if contrasted with the ICC determination that there is no evidence for war crimes or crimes against humanity by the UK. I propose deletion because this issue is settled authoratatively. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:: The essay is a serious analysis covering pretty wide ground ranging across several issues; it certainly does not hinge upon the decision of a single trial, the reference for which you have not provided.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I will look up the ICC citation, providing that you will accept the investigation of the ICC prosecutor last year as being more authoratative than speculation of more than four years back? Many academic papers speculate. Decisions by the ICC on a subject are more authoratative than academic speculation? Old citations become dated, and require deletion when this happens? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

* Global Research Council: The UN and its conduct during the invasion and occupation of Iraq: Testimony to the World Tribunal on Iraq by Denis Halliday

:This citation is an essay and is not (1) a news story gathered by reporters at the scene or (2) a reliable research source (because there are no citations for support). As an opinion essay, it is not a reliaable source for the article. Does anyone disagree? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:The Global Research Council is reporting about a trial before the "World Tribunal on Iraq" which is a bar room court or debating society that met in Istanbul. It pretends that this was an actual court. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

* Noam Chomsky Interview on CBC". Hot Type. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-12-09.

:Noam Chomsky is a respected writer, why are we using his radio interview and not one of his scholarly works that would support this point? The reader cannot access this source but could access his writings. Does anyone speak for retaining this source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but a more productive line might be to ask ourselves what is the article trying to say with these sources. I think probably most of them should go, but not necessarily because of unreliability; rather that I can't determine what purpose they serve to begin with. All of the aforementioned references are attached to the first sentence: "The United States has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by legal scholars, and human rights organizations, among others." Simply lumping together all of these references is deceptive. Who is a legal scholar here? A human rights organization? I think that they all should be removed, or perhaps incorporated at some other point in the article where they can be introduced appropriately. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 05:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:I am open to working in that direction. The whole point is to permit the reader to get the information accurately and easily, and they cannot now. There is a key word in the title "allegations", and unless we have proof for actual state terrorism and not just "allegations", we should be very careful to make it clear that none of these claims are proven. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:: I tend to think that the plethora of references was due primarily to the consensus process and the feeling that a multitude of references from various editors should be recognized. I am not averse to the notion of trimming them down somewhat.```` <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BernardL|contribs]]) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===More===

* Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor.
: This source states "Venezuelan officials yesterday accused the US government of being "hypocritical" after a Texas judge blocked the extradition of terror suspect Luis Posada Carriles." The WP article is not about hypocrisy. Does anyone speak for defining hypocrisy as terrorism - or for keeping this citation? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this should stay. Please see the statement in the article that this is supporting. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:Here is the text "critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied.[3][4]". In the summary of the article we have the US being charged with hypocrisy. Why is this relevant in an article about state terrorism? If the U.S. government is proven to be hypocritical does this prove state terrorism? What is the link? I'm missing that part. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::If the anti-terror public face of the US government policy is proven to be hypocritical, then that by definition implies that the US itself is guilty supporting terrorism. See [[hypocrisy]]: the act of condemning another person for an act of which the critic is guilty. Thus if the US were being hypocritical in its condemnation of terror, then that would mean that the US was itself guilt of supporting terrorism. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 06:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Interesting thoughts there. The text itself is not about state terrorism. It is about the US having a public and a covert public policy. Is it state terrorisim to have a public and a covert public policy? If so, your point makes sense. I strongly disagree with your thesis that having governmental secrets in policy is at all unusual or that secret policies constitute terrorism. Without a link to the article topic, I don't see relevance, do you? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is not "my thesis" at all. I sense that you are trying to set up a straw man to attack. Here is what the article says, following a brief description of some critics who assert that the U.S. is responsible for sponsoring terror:
:Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism...
The sentence is obviously relevant to the subject of the article, even without the state secrets bit that you seem to have glommed on to. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::The issue is relevance. Obviously many critics have said many things. Not all need be in this article. What is the name of this article? How does hypocracy become terrorism?

::Do ALL nations have a "public and a covert public policy"? Does this make all state terrorists? Is the US committing terrorism by keeping state secrets? The article suggests this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

::We now have tacit consensus for the deletion of the thesis that hypocracy by a nation is a form of state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we most certainly do not. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, we do have [[tacit]] consensus. You are free to shift this consensus by responding to the issue being discussed. You sentence above does not manage to do this because you articulate ''nothing of relevance''. It is just your tactic to interfer with the process of developing a consensus, a [[WP|Consensus]] violation. Feel free to instead shift consensus ''by responding to the question being discussed''. If you do not do so: [[Tacit]] consensus will appear to have been reached in this section. Does anyone ''else'' have anything to add? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I responded to your concern above. I do not see that I am obliged to respond to your satisfaction since you have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to swerve from your own interpretation of the passage. Consensus does not exist. Please go read a dictionary. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::''"This is not "my thesis" at all. I sense that you are trying to set up a straw man to attack. Here is what the article says, following a brief description of some critics who assert that the U.S. is responsible for sponsoring terror: Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism... The sentence is obviously relevant to the subject of the article, even without the state secrets bit that you seem to have glommed on to.'' Silly rabbit (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::*My question is what "straw man"?

:::::*[[State terrorism]] does not mention hypocrisy as terrorism. Is American hypocrisy terrorism, but not that of others? If not, why does this article uniquely define hypocrisy as terrorism?

:::::*If we accept that all nations practice hypocrisy, are all nations guilty of state terrorism? Would this charge apply only to those nations with an anti-terrorism policy? I really do not follow the logic.

:::::*What should I look up in a dictionary? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Chomsky ==

In this section [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#US_government.27s_own_definitions]], the paragraph starting "Chomsky has in turn been criticized for allegedly ignoring or justifying terrorism by other nations..." while cited, does not seem to deal directly with the topic at hand about the allegations against the US or about Chomsky's arguements that the US commits acts that match its definition of terrorism. As written, these 'Chomsky has been criticized' statements seem no more than a general 'attack the messanger' policy. The article used as a source shows that Chomsky has been in error about actions of other governments, but does not address any of Chomsky's claims about US actions of 'terrorism'. This section should be removed, or re-written with sources that more directly address the specific topic at hand.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:On second read, the source does say that Chomsky is wrong about claims of US terrorism from Clinton's bombing of the pharmacutical plant. But still, the paragraph needs cleaning up.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree completely; that entire paragraph is utterly unrelated to the section's topic (as laid out by the title). I think it can just be deleted outright. In addition, the "Criticisms..." section has a tremendous amount of fluff in it, most of which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. I have made suggestions for how to clean it up, but unfortunately it was during a time when people were busy with the shenanigans of a cabal that has been recently exposed and so they got lost in the mix. Do you have any specific suggestions? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, but that whole section--and indeed most of the article--is a disaster. The section being discussed--headed "US government's own definitions"--is nothing more than an impoverished debate between a Chomsky quotation and some random thoughts from [[Keith Windschuttle]]. What's the relation to the section heading? For your average reader it's slim or none or something similar. TheRedPenOfDoom seems ready and able to help improve the article, but until there is some serious collaboration among folks with very different political views I don't see this thing moving forward anytime soon.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 11:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Well, you don't have me to blame for that. I've been disgusted with the direction this thing took ever since that Tom Harrison/Mongo/Morton Devonshire/Nuclearumpf/TDC cabal came in and started strongarming things, here. Yes, it's a mess. But it has been necessary to keep this ''particular'' mess because otherwise that cabal would have simply deleted everything.
:FYI: it's now possible to openly discuss their cooperation because one of them came out a while back and admitted his participation, even going so far as to explain their modus operandi.
:So -- the page was perverted by them. I have no doubt, however, that as soon as conscientious editors here try to work it back into something acceptable that the group will be back again, in full force. While Devonshire and MONGO appear to be gone, Harrison is still around and -- if i read the Nuclearumpf/six of diamonds/seven of diamonds/zerofaults/??? correctly -- he is the actual originator of the whole thing.
:But i might be wrong. That might be an improper interpretation. I'm not trying to slander Harrison; it's just that the admission in question and some quotes by that poster on another website seemed to imply that was the case.
:Even so, if you have some suggestions then feel free. I would love to tighten this thing up, but as it is i have no idea where to start (and not much time to do it, either). [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::I am here to help. I have an idea of where to start and have the time. May we work together to accomplish your goals here? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Based on the agreement here, I have re-worked some of this section to collect similar concepts into groups and create a more logical flow. I have not removed any cited material. What exactly to do with the Chomsky/Windschuttle material is still up for debate, but it may be easier to see what / how to fix it in a new environment. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

=== Proposed re-working of information ===
{FBI definition of terrorism}

{State department definition of terrorism}

After President [[George W. Bush]] began using the term "War on Terrorism", [[Noam Chomsky]], professor of [[linguistics]] at [[MIT]] and a Senior Scholar at the [[Institute for Policy Studies]], stated in an interview:
{{cquote|The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare"... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same.<ref name="barsamian">{{cite web
|url=http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101chomsky.htm
|title=The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
|last=Barsamian
|first=David
|publisher=[[Monthly Review]]
|date=[[November 6]], [[2001]]
|accessdate=2007-07-10
}}</ref> }}

Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the US government and their proxies in their execution of [[foreign affairs of the United States|US foreign policy]] — in such countries as [[Nicaragua]], [[Chile]], [[Costa Rica]], [[Honduras]], [[Argentina]], [[Colombia]], [[Turkey]], [[Vietnam]], [[Laos]] and [[Cambodia]] — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state." <ref name="barsamian" /> [[Keith Windschuttle]] accuses Chomsky of using evidence that was "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented" <ref>Windschuttle, Keith. "[http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky]", ''[[The New Criterion]]'', [[May 9]] [[2003]]</ref> within the works Chomsky has written on this topic.
====alternate proposed by Raggz====
:Chomsky should get a sentence, maybe two. He is not the topic.

{FBI definition of terrorism}

{State department definition of terrorism}

{Chomsky definition of terrorism}

{Cuban definition of terrorism} [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===comments?===
Does anyone have comments about the revision proposed above? It keeps a tighter focus on applying US definitions of terrorism to US actions and applies the criticism to this specific topic as well. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


:Chomsky should be included, he has interesting insights. All that I ask is that this (and other) sections pay close attention to what is meant by[[state terrorism]], a summary of Chomsky's definition. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::Raggz, did you have a definition from the Cuban govt. that you would like to use in the above section per your proposal? Is there are particular reason that you think the Cuban definition should should be included in the section "US definition of terrorism"? [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Since Raggz has provided no rationale for including Cuba's definition of terrorism in the section on US definitions, I have moved the above section into the article.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Dubious references ==

I'm starting to go through the references in this article, and I'm concerned that not all of them satisfy the requirements of [[WP:RS]] (specifically, the section on extremist sources). I took a look at a number in the first twenty or so:

-Monthly Review: Seems to be a pro-Communism organization with a decidedly anti-US bias.<br />
-Syria Times: Published by the government of Syria, a well-known sponsor of terrorism. <br />
-Center for Research on Globalization: Strong anti-US bias.<br />
-Los Angles Times opinion piece being cited as a source: Come on now. No opinion piece in ANY newspaper can ever be a reliable source for anything.<br />
-Worker's World: Another pro-Communist organization. <br />

You can see a similar pattern with regards to many of the others. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 09:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:The question is not whether or not these places have a particular political point of view; every source will have a particular point of view. The question is whether or not they are a reliable source for the information provided. First, i would argue that your characterization of each of these sources is wrong in and of itself; you obviously don't have much experience in the world if you're going to argue that the Center for Research on Globalization has a "strong anti-US bias". But i'm not going to get into that, now. None of the reasons you give for discounting these sources violates Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. It's as if you're arguing that we should not allow any facts presented by Cuba's Granma simply because it's a newspaper published by the Cuban government -- that's an absurd argument, of course, because then we would need to disallow any information from the CIA, U.S. State Department, the Library of Congress, and so on. Similarly, to argue that a widely read publication like Worker's World or the Monthly Review must be disallowed simply because they are "pro-communist" of course '''also''' implies that we must disallow anything published by the ''Washington Post'', ''National Review'', or ''The Nation'', because each of these sources is "pro-republican" or "pro-american" or "pro-neocon".

:Yet Wikipedia abounds with quotations and facts from all these sources. So obviously your arguments are specious. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Allow me to quote the exact text of the relevant section:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, '''whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature''', should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

Information from sites that are pushing an agenda cannot be trusted as reliable unless it is specifically about those sites. My argument is hardly specious and I do not appreciate your attempt to wave my concerns away. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:: "Widely acknowledged as extremist"? Hmmm...Monthly Review is an independent socialist journal, yes- but it is not extremist. I have never seen an english-speaking university or college that does not subscribe to it. It is available in most of the major corporate bookstores and magazine outlets too. It is regarded as one of the most serious scholarly journals on the left. It regularly publishes articles by authors who have made significant impacts in their fields: Paul Baran (economic history), Paul Sweezy (theory of monopoly capitalism), Robert McChesney (media studies), Samir Amin (development economics), Immanuel Wallerstein (world-systems theory), Gunder Frank (development economics) etc.,etc.,etc.- even a classic article by Albert Einstein. Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you are attacking the issuing institution (while mis-characterizing them as extremist) when you should really be looking at the qualifications of the author first. You also mis-characterize globalresearch. Moreover, the author for that citation, Denis Halliday, is a former United Nations coordinator in Iraq. It seems like an eminently well-qualified source to me.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I could not have said that better myself. Well done, Bernard. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::And i might add: an opinion piece certainly qualifies as clarification of the author's intent, if nothing else. The question here, though, is whether or not Dinesh D'Souza's editorial actually has anything at all to do with this article. I think it's clear that it doesn't support the assertions which it is used to attribute, and in addition to that the assertions made have only an extremely tenuous link to this article.. So yes, i think we can remove that one. As for the Syria Times piece: it's a word-for-word reproduction of a speech made by a British MP! How you could possibly think that an illegitimate source is, simply, beyond reasonable limits. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[[The following was not authored nor signed by me -- don't know why it's here -- Has my computer been hacked? I am re-installing OS as of now]][[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Goodness! The article's header certainly has been expanding at an amazing rate! I wonder why it's been doing that all of a sudden! 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stone put to sky|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

=== Dubious References - Preliminary issues ===
Preliminary issues is offered are:

* When a website ''describes itself'' as an advocacy site, do we agree that it is then generally ineligible as a reliable source? I find that almost all advocacy sites are honest about this and look in the "about us" section for their self-evaluation of what they are.

* Some advocacy sites describe themselves as "independent media" and try to claim they are a media rather than an advocacy site. These ''may or may not'' require a case by case evaluation by WP policies, with an ''initial'' presumption for "reliable". The WP policy suggests that if a marginal site reports news that no one else reports, that this should be considered. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot get all of these references evaluated without a bit of consensus about how to do this? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Given the exposure to date, I believe that we may presume [[tacit]] consensus on this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::Depends. Advocacy sites often reprint articles occurring in the mainstream, and there is substantial precedent for allowing links to such articles. Also, advocacy sites often have experts working for them (think [[Heritage Foundation]]), and can offer various informed opinions. If the source is notable enough, then I see no reason that an advocacy site should not be allowed as a reliable source, as long as the attribution is done in an appropriately NPOV way. In other words, I would resist saying that advocacy sites are always good or always bad sources. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

===Exceptional claims require exceptional sources===
[[WP:REDFLAG]]

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
* '''surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;'''
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
* Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the '''best available sources''' supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material. Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

All of the citations being discussed need to be considered by the policy above.

Most of our article qualifies as: '''"surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography"'''. To retain these citations, it is important to offer reliable "mainstream news media" sources that confirm that inclusion is in compliance with WP policy for [[WP:REDFLAG]]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The policy (and this is just a subsection of the full policy we use to determine what we include and what we don't) is about things which may come up which "should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim." If any of these "redflags" are raised (which is often in the eye of the beholder as we've seen on this page), the policy emphatically ''does not'' say that in order "to retain these citations, it is important to offer reliable "mainstream news media" sources that confirm that inclusion." To assert that it does as Raggz has done probably a dozen times is to misread the policy. I've made this point in several sections already but am making it here since Raggz has either not seen or ignored it up until now.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Monthly Review]]===
[[Monthly Review]] is statred to be a political magazine with a policy for advocacy:

"Since its inception, Monthly Review has been a '''consistent and outspoken voice''' for socialism and against American imperialism. The editors of Monthly Review are prominent Marxists, but are independent, not aligned with a particular existing revolutionary movement (although they were early admirers of the Cuban Revolution, and generally support Third World revolutionary movements). In the pages of the Monthly Review, Marxism is not a political party but a philosophy; a looking-glass with which to view society. Its articles tend to be written mostly by academics — and researched and referenced as such — but are free of academic jargon. Founding editor Paul Sweezy saw the mission of Review as "to see the present as history." The magazine enjoys a steady readership and is more influential outside the U.S. than inside it."

Do we have non-tacit consensus that Monthly Review is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: Nope. No consensus whatsoever. Your characterization comes from a wikipedia article. Once again, wikipedia is not to be used as a reliable source. Moreover most if not all sources are "political", whether they describes themselves as such or not. If you are talking about establishing concrete criteria for which publishing institutions should be accepted, regardless of individual authorship, then you are addressing issues that are necessarily "global" which should be discussed in places that are concerned with global policy discussion like the Village Pump, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#IP_address_shown_not_warned]] and thereafter taken to levels concerned with policy formation.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::WP:NPA. If you cannot be polite, then simply do not post things. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Would you care to elaborate what, precisely, you considered impolite about that posting? I saw nothing impolitic whatsoever. In fact, from my perspective it seems that the transparent and neutral comment made by BernardL in no way violated common standards of decency, and so it is your comment - not his - that is in violation of WP:NPA. Not to mention qualifying as a none-too-veiled threat. So you may consider this a formal warning from '''me'''. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::If you have a problem with [[Monthly Review]], I suggest that you edit it there because here would not be the place. I have no interest in editing [[Monthly Review]] but will accept the opinion of the editors that do, if they change to say that it is not about political opinion. From what I read, Monthly Review is proud to do with what it does, probably does it well, and need not apologize to you. There is nothing wrong with being an excellent political opinion publication, nothing wrong at all.

:::We are not CITING WP, we are reading the consensus of other editors. '''Feel free to offer any reliable source here that [[Monthly Review]] is not about political opinion.''' If you don't do this, will you argue against consensus anyway? We are not debating any "global" issue, we are debating if a citation in this article complies with [[WP|RS]]. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::WP policy cannot be waived by consensus - or lack of consensus. You need to articulate why WP policy permits the citation to remain. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Raggz: use of the Monthly Review as a source does not violate wikipedia policy. The author in question is clearly an informed commentator with authoritative knowledge of the subject being addressed. There is no reason to discuss this any further; the source material is clearly in accordance with WP policy, and so it stays. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps, perhaps not. I might be persuaded. Consider what appears on their "about us" page?

:"At a time when many people have fallen into despair, when our opponents seem invulnerable, it's critical to have a magazine that challenges us to think, inspires us to action, and makes us realize that the impossible is only difficult, not insurmountable. That magazine is Monthly Review. —DANNY GLOVER"

:Does any "mainstream media" source have a statement about their "opponents" on their sites? No, they do not. [[WP|REDFLAG]] applies. WP's policy on "exceptional claims" applies. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry if i seem like a broken record, here, but i'd appreciate it if you could detail precisely what claim it is making that you consider exceptional. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Any claim for state terrorism is an "extraordinary claim" being challenged as a policy issue. In the case of the [[Monthly Review]]'s terrorism claim, is it echoed by the "mainstream media"? If not, it is not a reliable source. If there is such an echo, then it is eligible as a citation here. This is a policy rather than content issue, so consensus regarding content is not required. The consensus issue is if there is a "mainstream media" echo of the "extraordinary" claim. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[National Review]]===
The WP description for [[National Review]] is: "National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine of '''political opinion''', founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. While the print version of the magazine is available online to subscribers, the web site's free content is essentially a separate publication. Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events."

Clearly also a political advocacy source that we should deem unreliable. Do we have non-tacit consensus that [[National Review]] is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Okay and are you then proposing deleting all references to National Review throughout wikipedia except for those pages which are self-referential? That is exactly what is required if you are to be non-discriminatory.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::It is reliable, although it would be best to make clear that its statements are made from a position of political advocacy. [[User:Abiasaph|Abiasaph]] ([[User talk:Abiasaph|talk]]) 05:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:If we were to assume the level of crticisism that you two are suggesting then all statements would, in theory, originate "from a position of political advocacy". For my own part, i disagree with everything that the NR has to say and every idea it's based upon; that, however, does not mean that the opinions of someone who is criticizing an idea in its pages suddenly become illegitimate as a referent to that own person's ideas, just as it does not mean that the criticisms themselves are illegitimate. Once again: this source is clearly being used to demonstrate that there exist criticisms of the idea in question, nothing more. The same is true of the Monthly Review. There is nothing illegitimate about its use. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::I initially misunderstood and misrepresented policy. I apologize. "Political commentary" by reliable sources ''seems'' to be permitted by policy. The "exceptional claims" policy at [[WP|REDFLAG]] is where my present focus is.

::I found an example of the [[National Review]] contrasting itself with the mainstream media", so I suggest that it cannot be considered a reliable source.<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGYwYzRkYTJjZTM5MzlhMDA2NjRkZDE2NDdjYzFjOWY=#more</ref> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::NR is fine as a source. There are few publications with which I disagree more thoroughly, but it passes muster as a reliable source in a general sense, though as with anything else we would have to evaluate usage of NR (on a case by case basis (using NR as a means to argue against the notion that a given US action was state terrorism is fine--it's political opinion--using a random NR web column by a non-scientist as evidence against global warming would not be good). I'm far more concerned with Raggz's suggestion that NR contrasting itself with the mainstream media makes them unreliable. Are you being serious here? (this is a genuine question, not sarcasm). Academic journals, scientific researchers, and for that matter encyclopedias "contrast themselves" with the mainstream media all of the time--does this make them unreliable sources? Often the mainstream media itself is highly unreliable, and I would hope that everyone here regardless of their political leaning can acknowledge that. I'll take a look at the other source questions raised by Raggz when I get a chance, but given the rationale for keeping this one out (it is not the mainstream media) I already have my doubts about the others.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::The WP "extraordinary claims" policy uses "mainstream media". WP:REDFLAG is the shortcut, but it doesn't work.

::::It is difficult to determine which are "mainstream" and which are not. Self-identification is probablly the best way, such a self-identification speaks to the publishers focus and intent. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Wow. This line of argument is just...incredible. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. The policy issue is the 'extraordinary claims" policy. Policy limits publications that are not from the "mainstream media" if these claims are not echoed within the "mainstream media". Do we agree that this is policy?

::::::This means that any article in the [[National Review]] is not published in the "mainstream media". This ALONE does not mean that we cannot use it. If the claim is echoed within the "mainstream media", it is still fine. This should not really be a problem for this article because the only citations that we need drop are those that are "extraordinary claims" unsupported by the "mainstream media". [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The section in [[WP:REDFLAG]] (which does work) to which you are referring mentions "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography." You are misrepresenting that policy. I can't even find that National Review as a source in the article (after a cursory search) so I don't know the context in which it is being used (which is important). However for our purposes the NR is clearly part of the "mainstream media." It is cited by the "mainstream media" all of the time (for example their recent endorsement of Mitt Romney, and attack against Mike Huckabee, received widespread coverage). The fact that the NR is ''critical'' of the mainstream media is neither here nor there. So is [[The Nation]], [[The New York Times]], and programs on [[PBS]] such as the [[The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer|News Hour]]. Criticism of the mainstream media does not mean you are not in the mainstream media and to suggest otherwise (as Raggz has done) is a deep logical fallacy (akin to saying that because I have criticized and distanced myself from certain actions by the United States that I am not an American).

:::::::Additionally, the sentence above refers to "surprising or apparently important reports" which is key. If NR was reporting something surprising ("John Edwards really is gay!") that no one else was mentioning then we would not use it obviously, as I already suggested above. But if the editors of NR are merely expressing their opinion on whether or not the US acted in a terrorist fashion than that that is perfectly legitimate. This article is, by its nature, full of political opinion--in large part that's what it is cataloging. Prominent journals of political opinion will thus often be appropriate as sources.

:::::::Raggz, I'm afraid I do see a bit of [[WP:WL|wikilawyering]] here on your part including "Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express" and "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." If you really want to try to remove all reference to National Review on Wikipedia then I suggest you mosey on over to a couple of other articles which use it as a source and propose a blanket deletion of NR-based info because it is "not the mainstream media." If you get the same reaction there you have received here (and I think you will) then you might consider the possibility that you are interpreting policy poorly.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Your point is that [[National Review]] is a mainstream source? Fine. I have some brain damage, a poor memory, so have lost track of the debate that far back. Could you please refresh my memmory, which "extraordinary claim" are we debating by the National Review? I cannot recall this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I wish I knew, but this is something your brought up Raggz. If your memory is really an issue for you I'm truly sorry, but in this instance I'm afraid I cannot help you as I'm not sure what you were concerned about in the first place. In a comment above in this very thread you said "The "exceptional claims" policy at [[WP:REDFLAG]] is where my present focus is." Why you brought it up in the context of the National Review and the above discussion I cannot say. If you concur that NR is (in general) acceptable as a mainstream source then I think we are agreed and can move on.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 12:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Syria Times]]===
Agha, Mohammad (2005-07-08). British MP George Galloway opens up to Syria Times. Syria Times. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. This link is broken.

[[Syria Times]]: "Syria Times is an English-language Syrian daily newspaper.

Syria Times is published by the same government-owned company that prints the leading Arabic daily Tishreen. These two newspapers have a circulation (as of 2000) of respectively 5.000 and 60.000.

In March and April 2003 Syria Times received some international attention because of its harsh condemnation of the US-led war against Iraq, well in line with the official Syrian discourse in the debates of UN’s Security Council. For instance the Irish Times noticed that “Syria Times attacks Bush's "unholy war" and his "imperialist strategy to control the Arab oil-rich region””

In an interview with the Middle East magazine, Fuad Mardood, the editor of Syria Times, said: “I cannot imagine that there is anyone in Syria who wants to attack our policy (…) You can find people who have personal motives who may attack the system, but it is only to achieve personal goals.”

Clearly also a governmental propaganda source that we should deem unreliable. Do we have non-tacit consensus that [[Syria Times]] is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Fallacious logic. Being "political" or a Govt. Source, does not invalidate the notability of its allegations. We can report on them, provided with give attribution to the source. Everything is political, esp. dealing with this subject matter. What MP Galloway says, as reported by this paper, is quite relevant and should not be ignored.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Nope. Once again, no consensus whatsoever. The source is included as documentation of the speech by George Galloway. It provides a reference demonstrating that Galloway did, indeed, make the assertions in quesiton. It documents quotations of Galloway that are used to support the statements made in the article. As used in this instance it is a perfectly legitimate source. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::Presently we have tacit consent for removal of this citation because no one has disputed that it denies the WP policy for "extraordinary claims" (which is before this entire section). Perhaps this issues was not phrased clearly enough because what we have discussed is about content, not policy.

::The Syria Times is a government acting as a journalist. Governments are capable of [[propaganda]]. It has offered an "extraordinary claim", that the US has engaged in [[state terrorism]]. Someone needs to show a "mainstream media" echo, that serious mainstream journalists took this speech seriously enough to report it. If no one can show such an echo, by policy, this "extraordinary claim" is not a reliable source. Without such an echo being listed here, we do have tacit consensus for policy, even if we lack it for content. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry again. No '''Tacit''' consensus. If this source reported claims of a British MP, there is nothing "extraordinary" about that. If the British MP involved has ''denied'' making the statements quoted in this source, then this source would be questionable. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::Nope. Once again, you are categorically wrong. This is not a claim made by the Syria Times, but rather by George Galloway , the man who made the speech. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::How do we know that George Galloway actually said what is claimed? THIS is the issue. The Syria Times is making an "extraordinary claim". If George Galloway really did accuse the US of [[state terrorism]], I'm sure that this was covered by the "mainstream media". Governments are capable of [[propaganda]]. This is a state-owned journalist. The challenge is very fair. Just confirm the quote. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::If, as you seem to be implying, the Syrian Times misquoted Galloway, I believe that '''you''' would be responsible for finding some source impuning the accuracy of the ST article. There is no way that I could prove that Galloway has '''not''' recanted his statement. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::The quote is challenged by the policy of "extraordinary claims". Logically this policy could ''never'' be enforced, if it worked the way you say it should be. Marginal publications say all sorts of things. The test is if only ''they'' are saying this. If ''no one'' in the "mainstream media" covers the story, then that proves that the extraordinary claim is ineligible. How do I prove that ''only'' the Syria Times covered this? No one can prove that this happened, it can only be proven that the "mainstream media did cover the story. I cannot find any evidence for a "mainstream" echo, so by policy, it is ineligible. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If so, please share this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::What is the "extraordinary claim" in question? All the ''Syria Times is claiming'' is that [[George Galloway]] accused the US of terrorism. How is that extraordinary? It is not at all, as that is the kind of thing Galloway says all the time. You are proceeding as though the "extraordinary claim" is the accusation that the US committed terrorist ''and'' as though the Syria Times made that accusation. They did not (though if they had I see no reason not to report that). ''Galloway'' is the one making the "extraordinary claim" as you define it. He is a member of the British parliament and the fact that he said "The Americans guarded by the British killed thousands of people in Falluja. They didn`t care whether they were men or women, children or young , fighters not fighters. This is terrorism." (see below for link to full text) is clearly highly relevant for this article.

::::::The Syria Times ''interviewed'' Galloway (see below link)--this is why no one else reported on it (sometimes very important interviews will be reported on by other news outlets, but often they are not). When you are saying "no one can prove that this happened" I assume you are saying no one can prove that the interview happened, but that is quite beyond the pale. Do you have any evidence that the Syria Times pretends to interview someone they actually did not and/or egregiously misquotes them? If you do not then why are they not acceptable as a source? The fact that they are apparently owned by the Syrian government is not a valid reason, no matter what one might think of the Syrian government.

::::::The link to the interview in the article is currently dead. [http://go.webassistant.com/wa/upload/users/u1000165/webpage_20614.html Here] is a link at an apparent mirror site where you can read Galloway's comments if you have not already.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I will take your word for it. I accept that Galloway said it. Now, the question is if the "extraordinary claim" by Galloway/Syria Times was echoed by the "mainstream media"? An extraordinary claim need to be echoed by the "mainstream", Galloway is not the "mainstream media", in fact that source is self-published. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::You're way, way off policy here. This is an article about allegations made against the United States. Any reliable source that makes such accusations is worthy of inclusion. A minister of parliament is a reliable source. The idea that everything in this article must be echoed in the "mainstream media" and is not based on any policy that you will ever be able to cite. You also have not given any evidence that Galloway's claim is "extraordinary" beyond your own assertion (though that's not even really the point). As I explained in an earlier comment, you are misreading [[WP:REDFLAG]] and apparently not reading the rest of our [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::You raise the [[WP|RS]] policy? Irrelevant to the [[WP:REDFLAG]]. I am indeed interested in why you believe that I am misreading [[WP|REDFLAG]]. You could be correct. So what am I missing? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm raising the verifiability policy, of which "redflag" is a part. Firstly, please work on your linking. You need to say WP:REDFLAG with a colon (and brackets around it) in order to link to to it (when next you edit see how I did it in my previous comment). I explained below what your misreading was in the Cohn section but given that there are 50 different threads going on right now (a terrible idea, please stop brining up new threads while old ones are still being discussed--we're in no hurry) perhaps you missed it. I said below "If you re-read that [redflags] section of [[WP:V]] you'll notice that it says "certain red flags should prompt editors to ''examine the sources for a given claim''" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used."

::::::::::REDFLAGS is just one section of the core verifiability policy. The more important aspects of the policy note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reflags" is a way of saying "here are some signs that their may be a sourcing problem." Whether or not we remove a claim is still based on whether or not the claim is verifiable in a reliable source. The fact that that a particular claim raised a "redflag" (and again please note that you have had problems with certain claims while other editors have not--your "redflags" have been "so whats?" for others) does not warrant automatic removal according to policy.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Christian Science Monitor]]===
[[Christian Science Monitor]]:
"The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) is an international newspaper published daily, Monday through Friday. Started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, the paper does not usually use wire services and instead relies largely on its own reporters in bureaus in nineteen countries around the world. Many of the newspaper's staff editors and reporters are Christian Scientists, although membership in the church is not a requirement for employment.[citation needed]

Despite the name, the CSM is a newspaper that covers current events around the world. The paper professes that its purpose is not an attempt to evangelize.[1] With the exception of a daily religious feature on the The Home Forum page, the content represents international and United States news.

As of 2005, the print circulation is reported to be 71,000 but has a much larger online readership.[2]

Do we have consensus that this is a reliable source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it is a reliable source. [[User:Abiasaph|Abiasaph]] ([[User talk:Abiasaph|talk]]) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. Source is reliable.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am editing out the following citation because it does not discuss state terrorism, nor does it discuss a charge defined at [[state terrorism]].
Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 2007-02-02. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

===IPS===
On it's "about us" page, IPS claims to be BOTH a global news service AND a "'''voice'''" that will address issues '''outside of the mainstream'''. Here is a good source to debate, it claims to be both objective and to be an advocate. Are BOTH possible? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[[Inter Press Service]]:
IPS’s stated aims are to give prominence to the voices of marginalized and vulnerable people and groups, report from the perspectives of developing countries, and to reflect the views of civil society. The mainstreaming of gender in reporting and the assessment of the impacts of globalization are a priority.

In order to reach this aim, IPS does not lay claim to providing “spot news”, but instead to producing well-researched features and reports that give background information, and covering processes rather than events.

IPS may be unique in its concentration on developing countries and the strong relationships with civil society. For this reason, IPS has even been termed the probably “largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett and Rantanen, 1998: 174/5), being the “first and only independent and professional news agency which provides on a daily basis information with a Third World focus and point of view” (Boyd-Barrett and Thussu, 1992: 94; cf. Giffard, 1998: 191; Fenby, 1986).

Despite all the laudable aims, it is, however, important to see that IPS has never possessed the resources to be a major player in the international media landscape. Because of its focus on longer background pieces instead of concise news, it has at most a marginal status as news provider for mainstream media in developed countries. Its presence is more relevant on the Internet and in developing countries' media. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not "it's a major player" is irrelevant. It's a reliable source accepted and cited by many credible publications. It's in depth reporting is often quite illuminating.--[[User:NYCJosh|NYCJosh]] ([[User talk:NYCJosh|talk]]) 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. And, yes, any organization can be both an advocate and objective, in so far as anything is ever "objective." Objectivity is largely a fictional creature.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::The question that remains is if its admission to be '''outside of the mainstream''' means that [[WP|REDFLAG]] applies for "exceptional claims"? Why does only the Syria Times carry the news regarding the allegation of [[state terrorism]]? Is there another or better reliable source? Do you have a source that "any organization can be both an advocate and objective"? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Do we have consensus that IPS self-identifies as outside of the mainstream? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::We need to delete the reference below because it alleges a US double-standard on terrorism, but does not discuss state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cuban Terror Case Erodes US Credibility, Critics Say", Inter Press Service, 2005-09-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
:::Nope. No consensus. At least four editors here say no. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::We do not have ''consensus on content'', agreed. We presently have ''tacit consensus on policy'', in this case the "extraordinary claims" policy. One editor advocates that IPS is unreliable as a matter of policy and not one editor has yet to object on this ''policy question''.

::::EXAMPLES:
::::*Four editors challenge the NPOV deletion of material ''on the basis that they disagree with the NPOV policy''. Their disagreement is irrelevant to consensus ''regarding policy'', they need to cite policy to be engaged in any policy dispute. If they limit their participation to irrelevant arguments, they have actually offered no argument at all. The consensus is 1-0 in favor of the NPOV argument.
::::*An editor challenges a citation on the "exceptional claims" policy, and four editors disagree on ''content'' grounds. Again the consensus is 1-0, because objections related to content concerns don't count for consensus regarding a policy issue.
::::*An editor challenges a citation on the "exceptional claims" policy, and four editors disagree on ''policy'' grounds. Now the consensus is 4-1, because objections related to ''policy concerns'' '''do''' count for consensus regarding a policy issue.

::::Unless someone brings the challenged citations into ''policy compliance'', or makes some valid argument against the application of the WP's "extraordinary claims" policy, we will have tacit consensus for the deletion of any citations successfully challenged on policy (not content) grounds. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No. You are ''misapplying'' the policy. According to the 'logic' that you seem to be using, allegations of state terrorism in ''People'' would be the only sources that fit your application of criteria for NPOV sources. </facetiousness> Now let's get serious and quit wasting time. Your ludicrous inclusion of such obviously NPOV RS publications such as Atlantic Monthly and Christian Science Monitor within this list give little reason to take any of your concerns seriously.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::* When a source self-defines as being outside of the mainstream (as with National Review), we should accept this in regard to "extraordinary claims" that it may make. This is just WP policy. In fact "extraordinary claims" offered by any source, are generally (but not always) ineligible as WP sources.

::::::* The list is from those cited or raised here, and in order.

::::::* Any policy challenge is a serious issue to be resolved. Consensus is not required for policy implementation, but discussion should preceed this. I am pleased that you are raising policy issues and not content issues. You are the first to do so. Why shouldn't the WP "extraordinary claims" policy apply to sources within our article that are making extraordinary claims? This is the key question. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[The Atlantic Monthly]]===
[[The Atlantic Monthly]]:
"The Atlantic Monthly (also known as The Atlantic) is a American magazine founded in Boston in 1857. Originally created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine, its current format is of a general editorial magazine which claims that its content focus on "foreign affairs, politics, and the economy [as well as] cultural trends" is primarily aimed at a target audience of "thought leaders"[1][2]. While many of The Atlantic's articles are nonpolitical or written from a moderate stance, the magazine is generally considered to have a liberal slant.[citation needed]

The magazine's founders were a group of writers that included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and James Russell Lowell (who would become its first editor). The current CEO and group publisher is John Fox Sullivan.[3]"

I say it is reliable, but if there is objection, I likely will compromise. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:There are authors who have articles appear in both National review and Atlantic Monthly (ie: Richard Posner). Are you suggesting that articles from the same author are automatically disqualified if they are in National Review but automatically qualify if they appear in the Atlantic? [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm suggesting that we follow policy. Which policy are you suggesting that we apply?

::Every publication has different internal policies. Authors may write opinion pieces and also write serious research articles as well. Take [[Albert Einstein]], he did both. His work published in Modern Physics has an entirely different context than if in Atlantic Monthly. We should accept Modern Physics as reliable (for physics) and not Atlantic Monthly, which is political opinion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::BernardL has persuaded me, I support him, the Atlantic Monthly is not reliable. Does anyone want to keep it? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

: I would appreciate it if you would make a more sincere effort try to understand what I am writing. You should understand that I completely reject this approach that you are offering for assessing reliable sources - because it excludes considerations of authorship, which are paramount. My last set of posts did not concern the question of rejection or acceptance of the journals listed above, rather they concerned the gaps and contradictions I noticed in your logic. However, FWIW, <i>as institutions</i>, I think they all seem fine, within the bounds of acceptability; but for a source to be reliable the authors have to be notable. Finally, you have misread the policy, what is disallowed according to policy is not material from institutions of political opinion, but rather material from institutions <i>widely regarded to be extremist</i> whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature. An example of such a source would be a link to an article on a website of a nazi revivalist group.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Yes, I want to keep it. The Atlantic Monthly is unquestionably a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards of [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]]. This line of thought is probably better suited for the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]. [[User:Abiasaph|Abiasaph]] ([[User talk:Abiasaph|talk]]) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::I sincerely am open to ''any'' discussion that you may wish to have. Of course individual citations ''sometimes'' needs careful discussion. Look at the broader perspective, already some citations are tacitly agreed ineligible and other eligible, this is progress? Consensus for these may yet shift? We may debate each citation at length, if that is your preference.

::I do not know [[WP|RS]] well enough to engage you on this topic ''yet''. I find your argument persuasive. My objective is NOT to get rid of any citation - but to find consensus for how to review them. Please propose an objective standard for review, one that conforms with policy, and you will find that I will give that policy serious and sincere attention. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::As the Atlantic is a magazine of political opinion, it seems perfect for an article that solely consists of political opinion. --<font color="red">'''[[User:Abiasaph|Abia]]'''</font>[[Special:Contributions/Abiasaph|<sup><font color="black">₪₪₪</font>]]</sup><font color="crimson">'''[[User_talk:Abiasaph|Saph]]'''</font> 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::This article only articulates "allegations" and may not include facts. Such is our topic, we may not discuss facts. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::This is confusing. Why not talk about facts? Opinions/allegations are composed, in part, of facts, which are alleged to comprise the basis for the allegation. The facts can be supported by various sources, in addition to the source making the synthesis of these facts. Also, note that the allegations themselves contain statements of fact, which we talk about--even if this is disputed by others (we report on that too).[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::''"Why not talk about facts?"''. Because we have arbitrarily limited ourselves to [[allegation]]s. I suppose we can accept some facts, your point I conceed, ''is'' solid. My point is better stated as: We have precluded inclusion of any conclusions - but may only discuss allegations. I advocate changing the topic because an encyclopedia article that may not cite conclusions that actually may exist - but may make nothing but allegations, is not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, the subject matter of the article is about State Terrorism committed by the US. These take the form of allegations, and rather undisputed facts. For example, no one disputes that US has been found guilty of the "unlawful use of force" by the ICJ, which is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations based in the Hague. Since there is no agreed upon legal language among all States about the precise legal definition, "unlawful use of force" is used, and then we have various scholars, such as Chomsky, who argue this is "state terrorism" they found the US guilty of. But we are dealing with facts here. Facts include facts about the allegations, and the allegations themselves are facts, of a notable nature, backed up with lots of evidence (i.e. more undisputed facts). So what we have here is simply a school of thought found within political science, international relations, and other disciplines, which makes these charges based on various actions committed by the United States that no one disputes (for example the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan). And, there are various conclusions that we do cite, provided we don't make up the conclusions ourselves, by linking A and B, to form our conclusion C. That is Synthesis. Otherwise, its fine to report the conclusions by various notable sources.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 07:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The case taken before the ICJ was later appealled to the Security Council where it remains unresolved. The United States has not been found guilty of anything. The ICJ decision however is factual. I'm fine with its inclusion. I'm fine with quoting that decision, or reliable sources about it. Most of the rest is unclear. Nuremburg determined that "the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan" was legal. This was of course a self-serving legal decision like the point preceeding, but it is a fact as well. International law on this subject began with a ruling that the actions of the United States are not subject to Nuremburg trials. We could have this in the article, but I see no real purpose.

::::::::If each charge of [[state terrorism]] is supported by a clearly defined definition, and the related facts, fine. Presently the US is accused of state terrorism by Granma because an alleged Cuban terrorist wanted in Venezula resides in the US. Is the US accused of terrorism by Granma? Yes. What did the US do? It allows the accused freedom. In effect, Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism for immigration/extradition policies. Does the article honestly explain what Cuba means? No, this article hides the facts and the truth.

::::::::Option A: Declare the definition of [[state terrorism]] for the entire article.
::::::::Option B: Declare the definition in each context.
::::::::Option C: Leave it as a deceptive useless mess. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::You are wrong. The fact is the US was found guilty--by the highest court of law in the world, among a panel of international judges. The Security Council is not the judicial body, it’s the enforcement arm of the UN. Since the US is a member of the SC, the US simply vetoed to prevent enforcement in the form of either sanction or armed force. Btw, the judgment was first taken to the General Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in support of the decision and ordered that the US comply with the verdict. But rogue nations don’t follow the law, and instead continued to break it. And, yes, each charge of [[state terrorism]] is supported by by citations, and the related facts. The issue of defined definitions is dealt with in this article. This article is not a legal court; we simply report the facts surrounding the law, the definitions, and the various actions that various reliable sources implicate the US in state terrorism. This would be Option D. :) Your take on Cuba, quite frankly is nonsensical, and a major stretch of Synthesis. You are making your own conclusion about the charges by picking out one thing and turning it into an "immigration issue." That is a bit silly, not what the sources say, your own personal take, and it leaves out a lot of facts that do fit well with the definitions presented of state terrorism, i.e. it has nothing to do with immigration policy per se. Btw, even the FBI labels the Cuba groups that US has been implicated in supporting, as terrorist organizations. If anything the article can be expanded on this point. When I get some time, I'll pull up some more material on it. There is a lot.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::*''You are wrong. The fact is the US was found guilty--by the highest court of law in the world, among a panel of international judges.'' The [[International Court of Justice]] lacks [[jurisdiction]] to find anyone "guilty" of anything. It is the equivalent of a civil court, and cannot hear any criminal charges. Special tribunals are appointed by the [[UN Security Council]] for criminal matters, or sometimes are referred to the [[International Criminal Court]].

::::::::::*The ICJ finding was appealed to the highest court in the world, the UNSC, which did not confirm or deny the judgement. If the UNSC confirms the finding, it stands. If it never acts (as seems likely) the ICJ finding is not binding.

::::::::::*The UNSC is not really a court, but it has the supreme judicial function within the UN, the interpretation of the [[UN Charter]]. (read Article 39.) It is thus the supreme judicial tribunal for international law related to the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights.

::::::::::*"''Btw, the judgment was first taken to the General Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in support of the decision and ordered that the US comply with the verdict.'' The [[UN General Assembly]] is without any authority to order anything. It is an advisory body that is free to express opinions on any subject, and it did.

::::::::::*''"But rogue nations don’t follow the law, and instead continued to break it."'' The Law in this case was strictly followed. The ICJ finding was appealed to the UNSC, which declined to offer an opinion, which nullified the ICJ finding. What law was broken?

::::::::::*''"So what we have here is simply a school of thought found within political science, international relations, and other disciplines, which makes these charges based on various actions committed by the United States that no one disputes (for example the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan)."'' There is no serious debate (that I am aware of) that the use of nuclear weapons in war violated any international law. There is a debate if it was a moral policy, and there are other related debates, but there is no serious debate that this was illegal. You are not very well informed. I would appreciate it if you might share on reliable source for your hypothesis that the nuking of Japan was illegal, one that cites some specific international law. Search if you wish, nothing like that exists. (Feel free to prove that I am in error.)

::::::::::*''"This article is not a legal court; we simply report the facts surrounding the law, the definitions, and the various actions that various reliable sources implicate the US in state terrorism."'' All solid points, however we are an encyclopedia discussing a legal topic. We need to report the actual facts accurately and we do not. (Note the many errors in your legal claims, above.) This article needs to discuss allegations, and it needs to offer the Reader a clear summary of what the allegation is ''specifically''.

::::::::::*You state that there are no laws or legal definitions about state terrorism, but I disagree. Any action that violates the [[UN Charter]] may be broght before the UNSC for consideration. What form of state terrorism might we allege that does not violate the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, or some UN treaty? Our article needs to inform the Reader as to what the actual factual situation is (in my opinion). [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===Asian Human Rights Commission===
This site attempted to upload a virus when attempting to access their homepage. Update your AV software before investigating them.

"The [[Asian Human Rights Commission]] (AHRC) was founded in 1986 by a prominent group of jurists and human rights activists in Asia. The AHRC is an independent, non-governmental body, which seeks to promote greater awareness and realisation of human rights in the Asian region, and to '''mobilise''' Asian and international '''public opinion''' to obtain relief and redress for the victims of human rights violations. AHRC '''promotes''' civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Its sister organization, Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) is an organization with General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Commission of the United Nations. AHRC and ALRC has its offices in Hong Kong."

I have a prejudice against organizations that PRETEND to be what they are not. They are NOT a Human Rights Commission. JUNK. NEXT. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is reliable and i doubt quite seriously that it tried to "upload a virus". More likely your scanner was giving a false positive and you just don't have the common sense to figure out why. At any rate, the source remains. They are widely published specialist commentators in their field -- Asian human rights -- and are clearly an authoritative voice on the subject matter in question. Once again, your characterizations are inaccurate and specious. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is a reliable source: On the board of directors of the AHRC:
:Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer: Supreme Court Judge of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation and a well known human rights promoter, India.
:Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati: Chief Justice of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation, India.
:Professor Yash Ghai: Reputed Constitutional Expert and Spokesman on Human Rights, Hong Kong.
:Mr. B. R. P. Bhasker: Reputed Journalist and a Trustee of Vigil India Movement, India.
:Professor Byung-Sun Oh: Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, Korea
:Mr. Kem Sokha: Member of National Assembly, Chairman, Commission on Human Rights and Complaints, Cambodia.
:Professor Masanori Aikyo: Professor of Law at Nagoya University and Human Rights Advocate, Japan.
:Mr. I. A. Rehman: Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan.
:Sr. Mariani Dimaranan: Philippines Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, The Philippines.
:Basil Fernando: Executive Director AHRC
:They also appear to be a fully constituted NGO and produce annual reports (350 pages) etc.
:The fact that Raggz has a prejudice against the organisation does not justify removing it. [[User:Pexise|Pexise]] ([[User talk:Pexise|talk]]) 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::"The source is reliable and i doubt quite seriously that it tried to "upload a virus". More likely your scanner was giving a false positive and you just don't have the common sense to figure out why." Possibly true. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::The Board of Directors are important to WP for what policy issue? We do not need consensus to make a policy violation deletion. [[WP|Consensus]] may not overule [[WP|RS]]. Is this a site and organization dedicated to political expression? It states that it is. We can debate this source in regard to WP policy for inclusion, but this is not the place to debate the Policy itself. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::"''The fact that Raggz has a prejudice against the organisation does not justify removing it."''

:::No it does not. Here we have a political association of activists that are pretending to be what they are not. We could debate if this impacts the credibility of this source, but it is ineligible for inclusion by [[WP|RS]] anyway - so we don't get to debate policy, ''only if it applies''. What part of [[WP|RS]] do you claim supports including this citation? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::Once again you are making utterly unintelligible claims. What, precisely, is your objection to this organization? It is clearly headed up by a highly qualified board of directors. It is a registered NGO. It gives annual reports. It is a specialist in issues relevant to this page's subject matter. Why is it you consider them an unreliable source? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Human Rights Watch does not pretend to be a Human Rights Commission. The [[Asian Human Rights Commission]] deceptively does this. They are making an "extraordinary claim", so WP policy applies. The best (and perhaps only) defense is to show that the "mainstream media" has also reported state terrorism. If this may be shown, then the WP policy will not apply. If not, by policy, it goes. Consensus is not necessary for policy to apply. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::So what you're saying is that they are not admissible because you don't approve of their name? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::The primary issue is of course if they are making a "extraordinary claim" as they seem to be. This can be resolved with a "mainstream media" source confirming their "extraordinary claim". No, I don't like fake "commissions" or fake "courts", but this is not a primary objection. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that the claims they are making are disputed by comparable experts in the subject matter -- people in possession of equally comprehensive data and comparable experience in the field of human rights -- then i would suggest that it is in fact your own claims that are exceptional. Or at least, they seem so to me. Correct me if i'm wrong, but they seem to go something like this: "I'm Raggz, and i say this assortment of Supreme Court Justices and high-ranking members of the India Courts and government are making outlandish claims about the realities of Human Rights and legal activity in Asia."

If you can bring out some sources that make such a claim then we will weigh the two and see which one is more valuable to the article. Until that time, though, then i think we have consensus that your claims are rather hyperbolic. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:The real problem with what Raggz is saying is said user's constant invocation of a certain aspect of [[WP:REDFLAG]] to argue that any "extraordinary claim" (as Raggz defines it) must be immediately removed unless it is seconded it the "mainstream media." That's not what the policy says and I've already pointed this out to Raggz twice in prior comments somewhere in this unbelievable mess of a talk page. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that any mention Raggz makes of "extraordinary claims" as a rationale for deleting certain things is merely a "redflag" for that user's misunderstanding of our policies on [[WP:V|verifiability]]. Sorry if that's harsh, but we're wasting a lot of time here debating things that don't need to be debated.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 10:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::Be harsh. It is part of editing sometimes. We are discussing a topic that by its very nature is primarily supported by "extraordinary claims". [[WP:REDFLAG]] is a policy unusually applicable to this article. If an article is frequently challenged fot NPOV or OR, does the frequency of the challenges invalidate these policies?
::What does [[WP:REDFLAG]] mean to you? We agree that it is part of [[WP:V|verifiability]].

::May an editor challenge any seemingly "extraordinary claim" for any good-faith subjective basis? Is there an objective means to deny such a challenge? Restated: are subjective challenges for "extraordinary claims" permitted by policy - and when challenged, must a "mainstream media" reliable source confirm the allegedly "extraordinary claim"?

::''"...we're wasting a lot of time here debating things that don't need to be debated."'' What specific things do not require debate? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===The New Criterion===
The New Criterion is a New York-based literary magazine and journal of artistic and '''cultural criticism'''. Founded in 1982 by Hilton Kramer and Samuel Lipman, The New Criterion is published monthly. It is edited by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball, and has a circulation of around 6000. It has sections for criticism of poetry, theater, art, music, the media, and books.

The magazine is known for an artistic classicism and political conservatism that is rare among other publications of its type. It describes itself as "'''America’s foremost voice of critical dissent in culture and the arts'''," "a staunch defender of the values of high culture," and "an articulate scourge of artistic mediocrity and intellectual mendacity wherever they are found: in the universities, the art galleries, the media, the concert halls, the theater, and elsewhere." [2]

It regularly publishes "special pamphlets," or compilations of published material organized into themes. Some past examples have been Corrupt Humanitarianism, Religion, Manners and Morals in the U.S. and Great Britain, and Reflections on Anti-Americanism.

TNC has been running The New Criterion Poetry Prize, a poetry contest with a cash prize, since 1999. In 2004, New Criterion contributors began publishing a blog, known as Armavirumque.

:I believe that we have tacit consensus for retaining The New Criterion as a reliable source. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh...no. I think what we have is a consensus for retaining this particular citation. Nothing more. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::New Criterion is a venerable cultural and literary mag operating from the conservative end of the cultural and political spectrum. ''In general'' it's a valid source--like most all of the other sources Raggz has brought up--but like any other source we should always evaluate it in terms of the ''specific'' context in which it is being used.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

.. as we are gracely allowed to cite CNN - for scientific details?<br />
Who would argue they have the slightest insight into science
after all of their silly statements about physics of steel frame buildings?<br />
Entropius - --[[Special:Contributions/125.24.208.245|125.24.208.245]] ([[User talk:125.24.208.245|talk]]) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

===Granma===
Governments are excellent primary sources. When they operate as secondary sources, when they write as journalists about themselves, I do not believe that they should be considered as reliable sources. In this case, the Cuban Government is pretending to cover itself as [[Granma]]. I say NO, no to government [[propaganda]]. What do you say?

From [[Granma]]:"The newspaper is published daily and is widely read. Several weekly international editions, available in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese, are also distributed abroad. Also, news stories from Granma often are carried later in the Spanish-language sections of periodicals with a similar political base, such as People's Weekly World. Granma regularly features:

Speeches by Fidel Castro and other leaders of the Cuban government
Official announcements of the Cuban government
Popular sketches highlighting the history of Cuba's revolutionary struggle, from the 19th to the 21st century
Developments in Latin America and world politics
Steps by Cuba's workers and farmers to defend and advance the socialist revolution
Developments in industry, agriculture, science, the arts, and sports in Cuba today
TV listings for that day
The normal edition is published six days a week (not Sundays) and runs to eight pages plus occasional supplements. Recent supplements have included one marking the electricity company's purchase of vans and trucks from China, and another marking the start of the 2006 football World Cup."

Dump it - or no? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Nope. We've already been around this one a long time ago. Granma is as much of a reliable source for evidence provided by Cuba as the is the New York Times or the U.S. State Department for evidence presented by the U.S. If you delete Granma based upon your arguments above then you must also delete all references to information provided by the U.S. State Deparment, New York Times and Washington Post, and that is a patently an absurd idea. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, and one more thing: the BBC is also a government-published news-source. Delete Granma and you must also delete everything by the BBC. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm pleased that you are engaged with credible point.

:::The same is true of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Voice of America. There is a difference between the Department of State and the Voice of America. Are both equally reliable sources? No, my argument would not require deletion of government documents, but only of governments that ''comment as journalists''. Can a government body be a journalist? You claim that the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by the government? You will need a cite for that claim. The U.S. State Department does not pretend to be journalists. Tell you what, I will review the BBC site to see if it addresses the issue that you raise. Will you please check Granma.

:::The subject is not "patently an absurd idea". Granma is not the "mainstream media".<ref>http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/whernews.html</ref> Granma has compared itself to the "mainstream media", so has self-designated itself as out side of the mainstream.<ref>http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/agosto/vier3/31Alan.html</ref><ref>http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/abril/juev5/14battle-i.html</ref><ref>http://www.granma.cu/ingles/feb03/vier14/alarcon.html</ref>

:::Take the claim by Granma that US immigration policy is a form of [[state terrorism]]. If this is true, why doesn't the editors at [[state terrorism]] support Granma's claim? (This theory should go there first). Why doesn't one single reliable source ''in the entire world'' claim that US immigration policy amounts to [[state terrorism]]]? What Granma is stating qualifies as: "''surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known''" by [[WP|REDFLAG]].

:::You can best establish Granma's mainstream status by finding reliable sources for this. It has contrasted itself against the "mainstream media" regularly, so has self-identified itself as ineligible. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Since is an official govt. newspaper run by Cuba, as such it is quite notable. There is no reason to suppress the claims it makes. It should be reported on, and we should attribute the claims to it as the source, as the article does. So, again, what is the problem?[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Notable? Fine. Granma ''defines itself'' in contrast to the "mainstream media" and we have a policy for such "exceptional claims" by such a source. See [[WP|REDFLAG]]. Do you have a reliable source that denies it's self-description? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't matter how Granma defines itself, what matters is the reality: they are a notable source, and its certainly mainstream in Cuba, being the govt. official newspaper. I don't expect it to be mainstream within the capitalist controlled press. But all this is beside the point. What are the extraordinary claims you speak of? In regard to this subject, the extraordinary claim would be that an imperialist State such as the US, does ''not'' commit acts that various scholars, human rights organizations, journalists, and others, claim are acts of State Terrorism. That the US is accused of such is not extra ordinary at all--its expected of imperialist states to behave as such internationally with the user of political violence that includes terror. So unless you have a source that denies the existence of state terrorism, its hardly an "exceptional claim."[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::You have conceeded that Granma is in fact outside of the "mainstream", except possibly within Cuba? Good.

::::::::If the claim is not "extraordinary" (which is not the same as a false claim), why does it ''only'' appear in Granma? Why doesn't one other article in the entire world claim that US immigration policy toward those sought by Cuba is a form of [[state terrorism]]? The proper response (in my view) is to offer another reliable source that supports this "extraordinary claim".

::::::::Is the "mainstream press" only the capitalist controlled press? Is there a conspiracy by capitalists to silence certain facts? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, so instead of questioning the validity of this source, lets look at the specific claim its being cited for, and yes, we should be able to find another source that substantiates its claims. This talk about if this source is "mainstream" or not, is a dead end, as this is a very notable source, being a government paper of Cuba. As far as your question about conspiracy, no, its a question of bias, ideology, and market forces at work. There have been many studies done on the subject, Chomsky's work on media bias being the most well known. My point was only that if you happen to define "mainstream" as being the major western capitalist "agenda setting" media, then this reflects a bias criterion. Lets look at the claim and see if its repeated by any other sources. Also, where is the claim you refer to in the article? I looked for immigration but did not find it.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::What is "mainstream"? That is the best question asked so far. Granma has self-defined itself not to be. Is this an exceptional claim? Not if the "mainstream press covered" this story, it is if they ignored it.

::::::::::Notability is not an issue. Conspiracies are not an issue? Good.

::::::::::You say: should we "define "mainstream" as being the major western capitalist "agenda setting" media, then this reflects a bias criterion"? The answer is clearly yes at Wikipedia (in my opinion). Please refer to "exceptional claims" in [[WP|REDFLAG]]. How do you read Policy on this? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your redflag link is not pointing to any policy page, but I know the policy you refer to. The question here is what is the exceptional claim you are referring to? Lets not get side tracked. Lets look at the claim in question that you feel needs further citation for support. I looked in the article and could not find any claim about immigration policy being a form of state terrorism. Lets look at the actual verbiage that this article uses and what the source says. Then, if the claim seems exceptional, it doesn't hurt to look for another source, even though this source is a credible and notable one.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The exceptional claim is that the US government is committing state terrorism. Governments acting as journalists sometimes issue [[propaganda]], which is not a reliable source. They also sometimes report the news and do function as journalists. The WP Policy test in this case is if the extraordinary claim by Granma was government propaganda or not is if the "mainstream media" also covered this "extraordinary claim". This source has been challenged as propaganda, as an "extraordinary claim". To retain this source, you need to show that the "mainstream media" took the charge that US immigration/extradition policy regarding Luis Poseda as state terrorism seriously enough to even report. If you cannot, by Policy, it is not a relaible source. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:You fail to make a case why that claim is exceptional. As I said, the counter claim that the US does not commit political violence of the sort scholars describe as State sponsored terror, would be the exceptional claim. So I think you have it upside down. About the government newspaper, you are only repeating your bias, not policy. There is no policy that describes one kind of source as propaganda and another as not. This is your POV, not policy. In reality, all news media has propagandistic elements to it. Also, the mainstream media in the US ignores many major stories that are major mainstream news in other countries. So, I hope you don't equate "mainstream" with US, corporate news media. That would reflect a further bias.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Before an article that clearly has more than 100 supporting citations by notable representatives and mainstream publications you are claiming -- please correct me if i'm wrong -- that an assertion by the Cuban government that it has been attacked by the United States is somehow an exceptional claim? Please -- explain for us how this is so. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:You hit that one on target. Is our article "Allegations of nations attacked by the United States"? If so, there is mainstream support, but this is not our topic. What you need are allegations of state terrorism by the US from the mainstream media. Presently you have none. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:

===[[The Nation]]===
[[The Nation]] (ISSN 0027-8378) is a weekly [1] U.S. periodical devoted to '''politics''' and culture, self-described as "the '''flagship of the left'''." [2] Founded on 1865-07-06 at the start of Reconstruction as a supporter of the victorious North in the American Civil War, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. Dump it? I say yes. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:I do not understand. Please elaborate? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Please elaborate what your objection is to using this as a source. Of course it would be a political magazine since this article is about a politically based charge: US state-terrorism. Of course it would be a source of the left, since the left originates most of these charges. This goes without saying. I don't see the problem. This article documents and presents the multiple and serious allegations of acts of state terrorism of the US. Occasionally we have libertarian sources that makes the same claim, but very rarely a conservative source. But this should not matter. Provided there is not reason to assume the various and multiple sources listed to describe the instances they allege are acts of State Terrorism by the US, there is no reason to not use them here for that purpose. This goes for all the other sources you've listed here. You seem to be applying the wrong standard for this article. This is not an article on a scientific phenomenon.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Good points, all. I have switched arguments, sorry if you missed the one comment on this. I believed that a reliable source could not be political commentary. I was in error. I apologize for this error.

:::I'm now questioning if the "exceptional claim" policy applies, a more limited challenge. On this one, I have no argument that it does apply. I may discover ground for such a claim. Insightful comments, all. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Transnational Institute]]===
[[Transnational Institute]] (TNI) is an international '''think tank''' for progressive politics. It was established in 1974 in Amsterdam and '''serves as a network for scholars and activists'''. Though now independent, it was established as the international programme of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.

TNI receives part of its institutional funding from the Samuel Rubin Foundation (New York). In addition, it is supported on a project basis by a range of funders, including church agencies, peace and environmental organisations, European foreign and development co-operation ministries, the European Commission, and private foundations in the United States and Europe.

A tough call. I say look carefully at this one. It serves as a network for scholars and activists? If it said scholars, fine. If it said activists, no. People can be both, so my preliminary thought is fine, let it stay? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:I challenge Landau, Saul (2003-02-13). Interview with Ricardo Alarcón. Transnational Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for fifty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests fifty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past fifty years, not just thirty years back. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The interview is with a notable, informed expert on the matter. The claims made in it are a direct transcript. The organization that conducted the interview are a reliable source. Your objection that the relevant portions of the interview are exceptional are, in and of themselves, exceptional. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Workers World]]===
http://www.workers.org/
Enough said? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for forty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests forty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past forty years, not just thirty years back. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims of the Cuban government regarding their understanding of the U.S. relationship to covert actions taken against them are unremarkable and have been widely published these last four decades (don't tell me you haven't heard of the [[Bay of Pigs]]?). Once again, it is your claim that is exceptional -- not the sources'. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:You presume that the Bay of Pigs involved [[state terrorism]]? By what definition? By what reliable source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

===Radio Havana Cuba===
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Website http://www.rhc.cu/
Radio Havana Cuba (Spanish: Radio Habana Cuba, RHC) is the '''official government-run international broadcasting station of Cuba'''. It can be heard in many parts of the world including The United States on shortwave at 6.000Mhz and other frequencies. [1]

A primary government run source. Fine. Subject to the primary source limitations of policy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma, the BBC, AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here.[[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Governments pretending to be journalists are not really journalists. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Then i suppose you also want all references to the [[BBC]] and [[Voice of America]] deleted, as well? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'd say that is an extra ordinary claim. That is like me saying, "corporate new media organizations don't have real journalists." Of course that statement would be equally exceptional in nature, and quite frankly false, although it may be a POV. The fact is that journalism is simply the discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news in many media, but mainly in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::''Then i suppose you also want all references to the [[BBC]] and [[Voice of America]] deleted, as well?'' Yes, if they violate policy. No, if they do not. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

===Cuba Solidarity===
[[Cuba Solidarity]] is a campaigning group based in Trinidad and Tobago that supports Cuba and the Cuban Revolution. Its Constitution it set out its Founding Principles which are:

*Trinidad and Tobago Cuba Solidarity supports the gains of the Cuban Revolution and the development of socialist Cuba.
*Central to this philosophy is the belief that all countries have the right to self determination, national sovereignty and have the right to chose their own social, political, economic and cultural development. Implicit in this approach is fundamental opposition to the blockade and sanctions of American imperialism and all foreign intervention which attempts to undermine the achievement of the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban people.
*The role of Cuba Solidarity is to build support for socialist Cuba in Trinidad and Tobago and to co-operate with all organisations and individuals nationally, within the Caribbean region and internationally which support these broad objectives.

The objects of Cuba Solidarity are to:
* mobilise support for socialist Cuba
* co-ordinate common actions and campaigns in friendship and solidarity with the people of Cuba
* promote awareness about the Cuban reality by information distribution to groups and institutions including the mass, independent and local media.

No, not pass. Any one want this one? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Why are we wasting so much time and space on sources? Using Raggz criteria there would be very few sources left. FOX News is as much if not more of an advocacy group than any he has mentioned so does he want to dump that as well? Leave it Raggz, as sources will be disputed when appropriate. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::Go to the Fox News homepage. Read "about us". Then post here the part that you feel denies WP policy? I also would go to [[Fox News]], to see if those editors find [[Fox News]] to be a marginal source. I have never been to either of these and if you want to make a case against FNN from these, fine with me. This is pretty much how I screen citations, but we could instead use you preferred method. What method do you suggest? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::What is this source used for that warrants the objection for its use? I don't see what your objection is.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims". If this claim is limited to this single source, then it is at risk. If the "mainstream media" have widely reported this as well, it is sustained. Which is it? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::What is it about those claims that you find exceptional? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Allegations of state terrorism by the US. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::After [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp#Public opinion|Guantanamo]] and [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse|Abu Ghraib]] I don't believe that you can any longer claim that the mere allegation of state terrorism commited by the US will fall under 'exceptional claims'. A great segment of the world's population would not consider such claims as being unbelivably shocking, and therefore your insistance of REDFLAG does not carry any weight with me. Do you have any verifiable sources to support your position? If I looked I think that I could find recent surveys that would back up mine. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Seriously I do dispute that "the mere allegation of state terrorism commited by the US will fall under 'exceptional claims'". May we now agree that the policy is applicable? All that is needed to deny a "extraordinary claims" challenge is to prove that the "mainstream media" is echoing the opinion of Cuba's government-owned radio station that the immigration and extradition policy of the United States is a form of state terrorism. I don't doubt that you can find such criticism, but to claim state terrorism, I doubt that there is any "mainstream" support. We can debate the policy, but we cannot modify the policy, nor deny implementation with a debate if it is a good policy.

:::::::Presently, this source is sucessfully being challenged for having made an "extraordinary claim", a claim ineligible for citation. If what you claim to be true is actually true, denying this challenge will be easy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(indent)
If you retract your (in my opinion ridiculous) blanket claims of all of these sources 'failing' to be NPOV RS (Perhaps using something like the striketrough so we know that the conversation has moved elsewhere), we can start over addressing your specific claims for specific sources. Preferablly one at a time, so that we can avoid this multiple thread discussion that is simply wasting multiple editors times and going around in circles.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Consider the relevant material cited: ''"Alarcon added that Cuban-American terrorist Luis Posada Carriles -- who recently boasted that his activities were paid for by the right-wing group -- freely moves about in the United States following his escape from a Venezuelan prison in 1985."'' There is much about Luis Posada, but nothing about the US, except that he "''freely moves about in the United States''". It is an exceptional claim, is it echoed in the "mainstream media"? If not, it is not an eligible citation. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::that Posada and Bosch (his handler) freely move about the U.S. is not disputed by anyone except, perhaps, you. So it is in fact your own claim that is exceptional, not the one posted here. I have, however, provided several sources below which corroborate this source (actually, one is a derivative work that quotes the primary sources -- but the quotations are taken from undeniably reliable sources). [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::There is no dispute that Posada and Bosch are free to freely move about the US. Why is this relevant? You are actually maling my point. This is what the article calls state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

===Marjorie Cohn's 2002 Arab Studies Quarterly Article===
''Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.''

"Distinctions will be drawn between individual terrorism (the September 11 attacks); International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians); State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel); and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)."

This citation is challenged by [[WP|Red flag]]. First, it is an opinion piece that is now six years old, written before Iraq. Second, it makes multiple claims that the mainstream media does not cover.

* International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan

* State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians

* State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel

* and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)

Does anyone have a reliable mainstream media citation that supports any of the four allegations above? If not, policy says it is ineligible. Also consider that she alleges that "State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel" is [[state terrorism]], but this garnered a [[Nobel Peace Prize]]. I suggest that only a marginal source would allege that an effort that earns a Nobel Prize is an expression of state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I don't follow your logic. What is Red Flag? And why is a challenge by this Red Flag relevant? This citation is a legitimate scholarly article that can be used. Such a differenciation of the different types of terrorism is common place; it does not make any controversial claims either. Its claims can be supported by any number of other sources. The fact that its six years old is irrelevant, as is your alleged reason a Nobel Prize. All non-relevant.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::I put RED FLAG where REDFLAG was intended. [[WP|REDFLAG]]. The Article cites her for: ''"The United States has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by legal scholars, other governments, journalists, and human rights organizations".'' This is an extraoridinary claim under [[WP|REDFLAG]].

::She attacks a policy that earned a [[Nobel Peace Prize]] to call it [[state terrorism]]. Why do you call the awarding of a Nobel Prize an "alleged reason"? Do you dispute that this occured, or what? Are there mainstream media claims that this policy [[state terrorism]]? There are many that are critical, but to call it [[state terrorism]], is there even one? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Again, I don't see anything called "redflag" where your linking to, nor know of anything that says the claims of this article's subject fall under it. These are rather broad based claims that have been given much attention within the scholarly community, activists, governments, human right organizations, and others. There is nothing exceptional about these specific claims (that the US has been accused of...etc). In fact the claim is so non-exceptional in nature that it has its own Wikipedia article. Its a notable claim that deserves and can fill its own article on the subject. So I question your premise that its extraordinary in nature. But, even if you think it is, a purview of the literature supporting the subject should dissuade you of that notion. Rather, the reverse would be the exceptional claim.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at [[Marjorie Cohn]]. She is a law professor who specializes in International Law. She is Pres. of the [[National Lawyers Guild]] and a commentator on BBC, CNN, etc. In this topic that clearly counts as a reliable source. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Marjorie Cohn is noteable, the challenge is for her "extraordinary claim" that the actions of the United States that resulted in a Nobel Prize were actually state terrorism. Providing aid to Israel and Egypt, as required by the 1979 agreement, has been criticised as poor ''public policy'' in the "mainstream media". To deny this claim of an "extraordinary claim", you now need to show that her claim that this was ''actual terrorism'' was echoed in the "mainstream". Presently we have tacit consensus on this policy issue (if not consensus for content). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Forget [[Marjorie Cohn]], who is of course notable, more important is [[Arab Studies Quarterly]] which was founded by [[Edward Said]] and "was the largest circulating journal in English devoted exclusively to the Arab world" until it folded in 2003. ''It's an academic journal'', i.e. it's just about the best source possible. Academics routinely make new claims--that's their job in large part--which are not covered in the mainstream media. By your "redflag" argument here we would have to remove all journal articles or books which have ever said something not discussed in the mainstream media (I shudder to think what this would do to say, articles about people from the 1600s, since the "mainstream media" tends to ignore that era). You're wildly overplaying your hand with this [[WP:REDFLAG|redflag]] argument. If you re-read that section of [[WP:V]] you'll notice that is says "certain red flags should prompt editors to ''examine the sources for a given claim''" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used (for example Syria Times might often be a bad source, but for use in quoting comments by a prominent minister of parliament it is perfectly fine).

::All of this discussion strikes me as unhelpful. Raggz, if you have a problem with a source, describe that in terms of ''how it is used in the article,'' not in general terms. The latter is not getting you anywhere and probably will not. If Marjorie Cohn's article, or the National Review, or anything else is actually being used poorly ''in the article'' then I would join you in calling for it's removal. Calling for blanket removal of certain sources that are clearly at least somewhat reliable is a bad way to go about this. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I have confused you by changing arguments as I better understood the "extraordinary claims" policy that I put in ahead of all of these challenges. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that the very financial assistance that won President Carter the Nobel Peace Prize was actually state terrorism. I call for removal of this citation by this policy. Sorry if I confused you, no blanket source removal is still advocated. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, it's an academic journal (a very good source) which can actually make extraordinary claims--this is what I was saying. But where does Cohn say that "the very financial assistance that won President Carter the Nobel Peace Prize was actually state terrorism?" I have not read the article but the word "Carter" does not appear anywhere. Cohn seems to be talking about US support for Israel since the second intifada. That's not the same thing as the [[Camp David Accords]] so why are we even talking about them? --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Your opinion is expressed above, but ''Cohn says no such thi''ng. The US has funded Israel and Egypt since the [[Camp David Accords]] and with (perhaps) minor additional funding, she is claiming that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for state terrorism. This makes her vulnerable to a challenge for "extraordinary claims" since it is absurd on the face, and no member of the "mainstream media" has echoed her charge. PLEASE, just offer a mainstream echo, not an irrelevant argument. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::From the article:
:::::::International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); ... State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel);
::::::(Yawn) [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::To Raggz, where does Cohn claim "that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for state terrorism?" Please quote her directly. You cannot of course, which is why you do not have a case here. Previous comment from the anon IP shows she does accuse the US of state terrorism and it's already been demonstrated that she's a reliable source and that you are using the notion of "extraordinary claims" incorrectly (I'd like you to acknowledge that you understand this). All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion and I don't even know why you're claiming that it does. Can we move along?--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Lets begin with [[WP|REDFLAG]]? My understanding is that "extraordinary claims" may be challenged by this policy, and that when challenged by this policy, all that is required is to show that some "mainstream media" reliable source echoed the claim challenged as an "extraordinary claim".

:::::::::I have challenged this citation. The US funds Egypt and Israel as part of the [[Camp David accord]] that resulted in a [[Nobel Prize]]. Cohn claims that US funding to Israel is actually state terrorism. On this subjective basis and on a good-faith intent, I challenge her claim to be an "extra-ordinary claim".

:::::::::By my understanding of this policy, all that is required to deny my challenge is for a reliable source within the "mainstream media" to confirm her challenged claim.

:::::::::Where is the dispute? Do we agree on what the policy means? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::We do not agree on what [[WP:REDFLAG]] means (for the third time, notice how I link that--you are not linking it correctly). I explained above in this very section and in one or two other sections why you were misinterpreting it. Please re-read that as I will not explain it again until you've actually looked at it. Your argument about Camp David = State Terrorism remains invalid because Cohn never said that. I know you've challenged the citation, but you have not provided a valid rationale for doing so and despite repeated attempts on my part (and at least one other editor) to explain why you are using the "redflag" section of [[WP:V]] incorrectly you don't appear to understand what is problematic in your reasoning. Again, read an earlier comment of mine in this thread before asking me to explain it to you for the fourth time. This is beyond tedious.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make this simple. Is there a reliable source (other than the one challenged) that suggests that US funds sent to Israel is a form of state terrorism? If there is, debate over. Why can't we do this the easy way? If you already have offered a confirmatory "mainstream media" reliable source, I apologize, I missed this. If you have not, may we drop this debate and "cut to the chase"? What mainstream echo is offered? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually you are making it complicated. I asked you to re-read what I wrote above in this section on [[WP:REDFLAG]]. Did you? You are misreading the policy. A "mainstream echo" of Cohn is not necessary in the slightest and anyway I have no idea what that even means. So we can know where we stand, please explain to me the difference in how we read WP:REDFLAG (this will require you to read and understand my argument above in this same section as I have already done for you) and then we can go from there. I think that you are misapplying this policy all over the page and have said so repeatedly. I will not discuss any content issues with you until this is addressed.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===Counter Currents===
^ Counter Currents, 2004 June 19, "Who Is Allawi?" http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan190604.htm; World War 4 Report, "Iraq Meets the New Boss" http://ww4report.com/static/iraq5.html

This citation does not mention terrorism. Is there a reason to retain it? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== tags ==

These tags were moved to the top. Aside from #1 (neutrality), I'm not aware of any claims of OR, SYN, or misrepresented citations in this article, other than the one section entitled "Opposing Views." I'd like for the editor who moved this up to the top, indicting the whole article, to point out the specific problems so they can be address. Otherwise, I will move the tags back to the one section that editors agree there are problems remaining in.

# Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since July 2007.
# It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2007.
# It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since July 2007.
# It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text.Tagged since July 2007.
[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 07:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I agree with this summation. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:I believe that we have consensus? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Uhhhh...that would be consensus...for what, excatly? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::We all agree on NPOV. I will eventually raise SYN challenges, and I know that another editor has raised them somewhere above. The first order of business is to delete the citations that are not in compliance with the "extraordinary claims" policy - and those that do not support the text. The next step is to delete or modify, or support the OR. THEN we will review SYN. Why debate that which will soon be gone for SYN? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I have yet to see anyone point out any problem with any citation in the main body of the article. Until someone does point out a legitimate issue, those tags should be removed (or placed down to the one section that does have some problems). You have also failed above to make a case why your claims of exceptional are really exceptional. They aren't. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving the tags until such time as Raggz can make his case. This suggestion has been up for a couple of days now without comment from anyone else; Raggz himself has only said that he's "gonna get around to it", so in the meantime we should return the tags to their original location. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:There appears to be a concensus, or at least has not been any opposition voiced, to move the tags back to specific sections they came from.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed. Please move them back to the one section in question. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Is there an agreement to deny [[WP|Consensus]]? Policy may not be denied by a majority vote. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::At the risk of starting another multithread, convoluted 'discussion', I have to ask: '''What in the world are you talking about Raggz?''' Was this comment made in this section by mistake? [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== [[State terrorism]] - defined ==

I suggest that we agree to use the definitions of [[state terrorism]] from that article? Are there definitions unique to the US that would not be there? Why have this covered twice, and differently? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::This article deals with the idea of "State Terrorism" as it applies to the United States. As such, the definitions used by the U.S. government are necessary. I do, however, support linkage to that second page. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::If you are using a unique definition (for example that of the FBI) of [[state terrorism]], please share this? How is the definition here different than there? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The differences are academic, although I'm ok with the main article on State Terrorism listing all definitions. But you should take it to that article, not this one. For this article, we should list all definitions, esp. those that have direct bearing on this subject matter, i.e. State Terrorism by the US.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Then we have consesus that we will limit ourselves to the definitions within [[state terrorism]], unless we are clear to the Reader what other definitions we may use. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Your last comment is incredibly disingenuous and quite frankly there is a pattern in that regard. No, there is not "consensus" for what you describe. You brought up a point, two editors disagreed with you and said the exact opposite thing (add me to the list so that makes three) and then you claimed "consensus" for your point of view. Do you seriously think folks will go along with that and ''not notice'' that you are blatantly misrepresenting others' comments? Please stop this kind of thing, it is [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] at its worst.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::My last comment was made in good-faith, and was based upon my understanding. I have serious traumatic brain damage, and may be missing something I might once have more quickly picked up. "Blatantly misrepresenting others' comments" will not accomplish anything for anyone, I'm just echoing what I understand so that I'm certain that I'm getting what is meant.

:::::::What did I miss? Why don't we have consensus to either use the definitions in [[state terrorism]] or clearly define variance for the Reader? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Inaccurate Citations ==

===[[Cuban American National Foundation]]===
''"In 1998 the Cuban government charged the [[Cuban American National Foundation]], which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the [[Reagan administration]] and receives U.S. government funding<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13f0012.pdf |publisher=United States Department of Education: Office of Inspector General |title=Review of Department Identified Contracts and Grants for Public Relations Services}}</ref> with, according to the official government-controlled [[Radio Havana Cuba]], the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities<ref>{{cite web|title=Cubanews From radio Havana Cuba |url=http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.1998/98_aug/rhc-eng-08.14.98 |publisher=Radio Habana Cuba}}</ref> [[Granma]], the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator [[Mel Martinez]] was meeting with [[Cuban American]] terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://granmai.cubaweb.com/ingles/2006/junio/mier28/27escandalo-i.html |title=Scams and scandals among Miami terrorists |publisher=Cuba State News: Granma Internacional Digital}}</ref> "''

* The [[Cuban American National Foundation]] is claimed to have US funding, but the citation does not support this. It says that the Cuban American National ''Council'' gets US funding.

It was improper to revert the text without correcting this inaccuracy. If editors want to revise text, fine. Please do not revert known inaccuacies that are misleading and then suggest that the change was for readability. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Not true. I checked the source and it clearly says "Cuban American National Foundation." I quote: "CUBA DENOUNCES ON-GOING FINANCING OF ANTI-CUBAN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES BY MIAMI-BASED'' CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION''''. So, I will restore this as its valid. Also, I will revert your inclusion of "for this reason...very different or even unique..." because that would be a classic SYN violation, since you are coming up with this conclusion yourself, devoid of any source that makes this conclusion. Just present the definitions (which by the way are NOT very different), and state there is no accepted consensus internationally yet (since these statements are supported by the sources). Currently the article already makes these points clear.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::Cut and Pasted here from the disputed source: "Grant U215U040014, '''Cuban American National Council''' (Appendix A, Item 12) The purpose of this grant was to establish a resource center to provide public information, training and technical assistance to the Hispanic Community in Florida, New Jersey and Georgia. The grant began in October 2004 and the grant specialist indicated that the grantee has not yet produced any products. The search function was not able to find anything about the '''Cuban American National Foundation'''. Please post your text here. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I did quote the text, above. And I used the citation that is provided supporting the claim. The source it gives for this claim is this:[http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Radio_Havana_English/.1998/98_aug/rhc-eng-08.14.98], Radio Havana. The The CANC is simply a split off from the CANF, and I'm sure both are funded. But, the citation that follows the claim does accurately support the claim. So what is the problem, if you found another source that says the CANC is supported, too?[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Then there is consensus for the deletion of material relationg to the Cuban-American National Council. When there is a reliable source for your opinions, with consensus, we can insert these facts. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::The [[National Endowment for Democracy]] has funded the [[Cuban American National Foundation]] in the past. There are plenty of references available from a quick 2 minute Google search. Here is one reference: [http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1513]. Here is another from CANF: [http://canf1.org/artman/publish/canf_press/U_S_Democracy_Assistance_Needs_Better_Management.shtml]. It would be nice to find an inspector general report. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I agree that citation #23 mentioned above should be removed. I have removed the citation, replacing it with a <i>fact</i> tag, since as Silly Rabbit indicates above, there is a reasonable prima facie case that reliable sources can be found for that particular claim. I will try to address it over the course of the weekend. I know of two for sure William Blum and Salim Lamrami. For the moment the sentence looks ugly because of the citation tag in the middle of it; but that's just temporary. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

====CANF====
''"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro.[39][40][41]"''

Nothing in the paragraph above has any relevance to the topic of this article. Please move it to the correct article - or link the US to CANF with a reliable source. This cannot be an allegation, an allegation alone does not offer relevance. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

: BernardL and I have already responded to your objection above. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 14:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::No rush. A single reliable source to support the text is fine. The source needs to link US funding to state terrorism. The present lack of this was a problem, and it will be good to have this citation. If the link is to an NGO that gets US funding, it would require particularly careful wording to work well. If WP accuses a US NGO of being a terrorist entity, there is great WP liability if the source is not strong enough. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Cuban American National Foundation, based in Miami, is a lobbying and advocacy organization founded in 1981 that disseminates information about economic, political, and social issues in Cuba and in the U.S. Cuban community. One of its major objectives is to pressure Washington to take a hard line toward the Castro government. The foundation's longtime chairman, Jorge Mas Canosa, was described by the Miami Herald as the "most powerful Cuban exile in America," and before his death Mas-watchers asserted that he wanted to replace Castro as the country's head of state should the Cuban leader be overthrown. Mas was a close friend of Felix Rodriguez, a former CIA operative who coordinated air shipments from El Salvador for Oliver North's illegal contra supply network. In fact, North's diaries refer to Mas as a pass-through for money to the contras. The foundation received more than $600,000 in NED grants in the 1984-91 period, which it used to create and finance anti-Castro human rights organizations whose materials are designed to generate international sentiments against the Cuban government. Today, CANF no longer takes the view of the anti-Castro hardliners but believes that political transition in Cuba will be led not by expatriates but by the Cuban people." [[http://americas.irc-online.org/reports/2004/0406castro.html]]

note: Tom Barry, is senior policy analyst at The International Relations Center. He has authored or co-authored more than twenty books on Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, food aid, the United Nations, free trade and U.S. foreign policy. These include The Great Divide: Challenge of U.S.-Mexico Relations in the 1990s (Grove Press), Feeding the Crisis: U.S. Food Aid and Farm Policy in Central America (University of Nebraska), The Next Fifty Years: The United Nations and the United States, and the award-winning Zapata’s Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crisis in Mexico (South End Press). He has also edited volumes on foreign policy such as Global Focus: U.S. Foreign policy at the Turn of the Millennium (St. Martin’s Press). [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===Asia Times Online===
Bhadrakumar, M. K. (2007-02-24). "Foreign devils in the Iranian mountains". Asia Times Online.
This citation does not make any mention of terrorism or state terrorism, and so requires deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:Keep reading. It does make that accusation, several times. I know because I've been over this before.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) A little while ago I challenged that source for the same reason. However, when I re-read the source I discovered I was incorrect; it does accuse the United States of terrorism. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 06:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi IceColdBear. Welcome back. Yes, I remember that conversation. You only made this mistake once, but Raggz has been making it for almost every article, every source. That is too much. Please, Raggz, just take the time to read the source carefully, instead of looking for an opportunity to call for its removal. You seem to be driven by a strong desire to simply get rid of all sources for this article, and keep grasping at straws. If this keeps up, editors may start to think that you're just being disruptive here and not editing in good faith (this article has a history of such antics). I have not reached that conclusion yet, and will continue to extend you good faith, however, if you can please be more careful and take more time to read and think before you write, it would reflect much better on you. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 08:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What does the citation say about terrorism? Every quote is below:
* ''"The Iranian outburst was, conceivably, prompted by the spurt of trans-border terrorism inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province, which borders Pakistan."''
* ''"Tehran, too, will probably face an existential dilemma as to whether or not such acts of terrorism are taking place with the knowledge of Musharraf and, more importantly, whether or not Musharraf is capable of doing anything about the situation.''
* ''"Iran is fast joining ranks with India and Afghanistan as a victim of trans-border violence perpetrated by irredentist elements crossing over from Pakistan. Tehran, too, will probably face an existential dilemma as to whether or not such acts of terrorism are taking place with the knowledge of Musharraf and, more importantly, whether or not Musharraf is capable of doing anything about the situation."''
* ''"Iran, perhaps, is somewhat better placed than India or Afghanistan to resolve this dilemma, '''since it is the US (and not Pakistan)''' that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism. And what could Musharraf do about US activities on Pakistani soil even if he wanted to? The Iranians seem to have sized up Musharraf's predicament."''

This is an editorial (or opinion) paragraph. It is not a statement of fact. The [[Asia Times]] Online declares that it is a "voice" AND a news organization. Here is and example of it mixing the two. As usual, when dirt and water get mixed, WP editors end up with only mud to work with, but we can with more work, seperate fact from opinion. The citation needs to be deleted UNLESS the article cites the OPINION of the Asia Times Online. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we comply with [[WP|Synthesis]], ONLY the "irredentist elements" are accused of terrorism. Where is the US acussed? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::Here:
:::The Iranian outburst was, conceivably, prompted by the spurt of trans-border terrorism inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province.
::The subsequent discussion is about how the U.S. military is organizing and financing it. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

===NY Times===
Car bomb in Iran destroys a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards The New York Times
The NY Times did not accuse the US of state terrorism. It said: "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,” a common reference to the United States and Britain." While the NY Times believes that the claim was directed at the United States, it also named an Iranian group fighting for national liberation as the suspected terrorists. Does anyone have another source for this claim? If not, this source needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:The article goes on to describes that Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the United States and Britain of provoking and supporting the terrorist actions, opposition groups, ethnic conflict, etc. These allegations are supported by the Asian Times source, above, which makes these same claims, several times, accusing the US of the same, and in particular, "trans border terrorism."[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, I think Raggz is correct. The article says, "Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the United States and Britain of provoking ethnic unrest in Iran and of supporting opposition groups." To call those actions terrorism is [[WP:SYNT|synthesis]]. The source should be removed. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You are right that the NY times does not accuse the US of terrorism, but it does report on the facts that support the articles claim that Iran accuses the US of stirring up sectarian violence inside Iran, and it can be used to support that claim. Its in that context that the other source claims this is US sponsored terrorism. Since we are not making up any new claims not supported by sources within the article, there is no SYN going on here.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::This one is iffy. Obviously it does not have a source which directly accuses the US of terrorism. However the paragraph preceding the footnote is already adequately sourced by the Asia Times article. Thus the New York Times article could be viewed as providing additional background information and an ''implicit'' denunciation of "US terrorism" in Iran. Thus the passage "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by 'insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,'" is particularly relevant. No direct accusation of US state terrorism so the article could not stand on its own as a source, but given that there is already a source for the terrorism accusation by Iran (and the strong implication in Shahriari's statement that the US was, as Iran say it, committing terrorism via these car bombers) I don't see much of a problem with keeping it, and I don't see a [[WP:SYNTH]] violation. It might be extraneous though and would certainly not be the end of the world if it was removed. Basically I'm on the fence leaning toward keeping it but also not caring so much.

::::Incidentally, I would be shocked if [[Ahmadinejad]] had not directly accused the use of terrorism at some point. If we could find some direct quotes from him for this section that would be quite useful (and undeniably relevant).--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Congratulations, you've just proved why using that citation is OR. Therefore it must be removed. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Could you elaborate? I don't see how including an additional footnote is OR when the basic point has already been established with another footnote. There's a case to be made for removal but I don't think it lies in OR, and I don't think it's a big deal either way.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Bigtimepeace just explained in a better way the same thing I was saying above, which is that its not SYN or OR. Rather its giving additional information about the claims being made in the article, with the terrorism charge supported by the primary source. This one gives additional background information and supports the other statement in the article, i.e. ethnic strife being instigated by the US (which the other article articulates as terrorism). So, there is nothing wrong with this (but I agree alone it could not stand).[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The NY Times '''did not accuse the US of state terrorism'''. It said: "Hossein Ali Shahriari, the representative from Zahedan in Parliament, said the attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism,” a common reference to the United States and Britain."

:::::::'''1.''' The article may say he attack had been carried out by “insurgents and smugglers who are led by the world imperialism”.
:::::::'''2.''' It may alternatively say the NY Times '''believes''' that the attack had been carried out by elements that Iran claims were aided by the US. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===Brinkley, Joel (2004 June 9). "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks".===
''Brinkley, Joel (2004 June 9). "Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks". New York Times.''

This article does not discuss state terrorism. Is there a reason for retention? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===BBC===
Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

This citation does not allegae that Cuba has accused the US of state terrorism. Unless some link is shown between Possada and the US, it is an irrelevant citation, and its use presently violates [[WP|Synthesis]]. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::The article states that the bombing of the airliner was an act of terrorism. It also states that Cuba condemns the U.S. for not extraditing the man considered guilty for it. Both statements are repeated elsewhere in the context of accusations of "state terrorism". It's not syn. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Read the applicable policy: [[WP|Synthesis]]. The bombing WAS terrorism. No argument, but it is irrelevant to our article. If we want a section about US immigration policy as terrorism, I am fine with that. You just explained why this article cannot be used, so do we have consensus for removal? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::No, we don't. 218 did not "just explain why this article cannot be used" and it is highly disingenuous to claim that that is what the user was saying. I don't know why you are bringing up US immigration policy since that does not seem to be the issue here. And again (because I explained this to you before) don't link to [[WP|Synthesis]] (which goes nowhere) instead link to [[WP:SYN|Synthesis]] (which goes to the relevant policy). You need to master wikilinking if you are going to keep linking to policies. I'm happy to help if you have questions about this but if you edit this section you'll see the difference between how you linked and how I linked.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::From a broader perspective my editing objective is to ensure that the Reader knows what [[state terrorism]] means in regard to '''every''' allegation discussed.

:::::*Cuba has made allegations that the US harbors terrorists.
:::::*This allegation is about US immigration and extradition policy and nothing else, as state terrorism.

:::::I am fine with including allegations of US immigration and extradition policy - ''as long as the Reader understands what is being alleged by Cuba.'' HOW we make this clear, we may properly debate at length. I am ''very'' concerned that we edit in a manner so that the Reader understands ''what is being alleged''.

:::::The article violates [[WP:SYN|Synthesis]] (in my opinion) because there is no reliable source ''linking'' the alleged terrorists ''to the US''. The only charges made ''in these citations'' against the US, are immigration/extradition policy issues. Cuba accuses individuals of bombings, but does not accuse the US of bombings. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::''"Earlier this year, they called Mr Posada Carriles "the primary suspect" of "the most horrific act of terrorism ever experienced by the countries" of the Caribbean."'' This article is not about Posada Carriles. This citation cannot be used to support an allegation of state terrorism by the United States. It may support a claim against Posada. [[WP:SYN|Synthesis]] [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Four New Sources (Whups!) ==

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

A) This source clearly outlines and quotes reports by major U.S. government reports and media detailing covert acts of aggression and/or terror in Iran:
:I suggest paraphrased inclusion of this quotation:
:::By May of 2003, ABC News reported, the Pentagon was "advocating a massive covert action program to overthrow Iran's ruling ayatollahs", a proposal "which would include covert sponsorship of a group currently deemed terrorist by the U.S. government", the MEK,

This statement is supported (and quoted) by this source:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm

Scott Ritter is a notable commentator on the issues in question. From that particular article i suggest including this quotation:
:::The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

:::....But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
:::....CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units ... are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran....

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

B) The same source above, but used as validation of assertions that the CANC and CANF are linked by close ties; that CANF in particular has been a haven for terrorists, as well as an excellent quotation regarding Orlando Bosch (from the NYT):

:::The Justice Department called Mr. Bosch 'a terrorist, unfettered by laws or human decency, threatening and inflicting violence without regard to the identity of his victims' The first Bush administration overruled the deportation in 1990; Mr. Bosch remained in Florida." Bosch still lives in Miami.

And in that vein, there are also these other two sources of corroborating evidence on CANF:

* An article from Granma detailing the close political and money ties between the U.S. government and CANF:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm

* This article goes into great detail about the activities of Jorge Mas Canosa. In particular, there is an explicit quotation of him bragging about how he organized covert operations against Cuba while working as a propagandist under E. Howard Hunt in the CIA.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm

I think all of these sources offer a lot of material to buttress and bolster the content that is already on the page. Opinions? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. These are reliable sources and this information would improve the content on the page.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

===Four New Useless Sources===
This statement is supported (and quoted) by this source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm.

:Not true. The word terrorism does not even appear. There is NO consensus for adding this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html

:Not useful,merely an advocacy site opinion piece - unless attributed to the author AND if notability is established. No consensus for inclusion.[[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::All of the citations in the article are from the mainstream press. Your objection does not hold. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An article from Granma detailing the close political and money ties between the U.S. government and CANF:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm

:Self-published, so useless. No consensus for inclusion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::How's that? It's a special for Granma international, originally published on ZNet: [http://www.zmag.org/zsustainers/zdaily/2000-12/15franklin.htm]. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I will take you at your word. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: You don't need to take me at my word. Just click the link to Z magazine provided. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 14:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Now I have read it. Granma alleges ''"Military courts in Venezuela acquitted them, not a surprising development since the CIA in 1967 had transferred Posada to Venezuela, using him as a leader of terrorist activities against Cuba in Latin America and the Caribbean."'' Nothing else there relates to state terrorism. This is subject to the "extraordinary claims" policy of [[WP:REDFLAG]] because Granma is a state-owned propaganda outlet that also provides news. To deny this challenge one need only find an echo within the "mainstream media". Absent such an echo, not a reliable source per [[WP:REDFLAG]]. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Raggz, as other editors have repeatedly pointed out to you (and you've simply ignored them) is that your constant invocation of a certain aspect of [[WP:REDFLAG]] to argue that any "extraordinary claim" (as you defines it!) must be immediately removed unless it is seconded it the "mainstream media" is not what the policy says. I am assuming you have a misunderstanding of our policies on [[WP:V|verifiability]], but at some point we do expect you to review this policy ans properly understand it, and until then, take the many editors words for it (as we have been here a long time), and cease this line of reasoning.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm
:Self-published, so useless. No consensus for inclusion.

:: Originally published in ''The Progressive'' 1993. Doesn't sound self-published to me. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I will take you at your word. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Quite a collection of impossible sounding claims, so I again challenge this as a reliable source because of the [[WP:REDFLAG]] "extraordinary claims" policy. What I think is irrelevant, all you need is a mainstrean media echo to deny my challenge.

::::The only allegation involving terrorism is: ''"After Bosch was released in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department ordered his deportation, citing reports from the CIA and FBI about the enormity of his terrorism."'' There is no US link, and a reliable source (1) proving terrorism and (2) some firm US link makes this citation useless for a US article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I read the art's and both are like Stone says both are supporting the CANF quotes Raggz is complaining about and all quotes from big name pubs so I say they are o.k. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 12:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

*Read http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-31.htm It does not mention terrorism. If it does not mention terrorism, why use it? Please quote the relevant text? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

* Read http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html ''"Further, Cuba "said terrorism cannot be defined as including acts by legitimate national liberation movements" while asserting that "acts by states to destabilize other states is a form of terrorism."'' It is mostly about state terrorism by Cuba. This article is not about state terrorism by Cuba. The only use of this article would be to state "Counterpunch.org believes that the US has engaged in state terrorism against Cuba." Do we want a section on Cuban terrorism? I don't, but [[WP|NPOV]] requires that we get into tghis if we use much of this material.

* Read http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/granma.htm In this article, the government of Cuba discusses various grievences, but does not mention state terrorism.

* Read http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBFranklins/canf.htm The only place "terrorism" is mentioned is: ''"After Bosch was released in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department ordered his deportation, citing reports from the CIA and FBI about the enormity of his terrorism."'' As is typically the case, this text is irrelevant without any reliable source that links Bosch to the US government. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== Vandalism reverted ==

An anon-IP user moved the disputed tags to the "opposing views" section without giving a valid reason. I would take this to be vandalism given the criticism of the article is throughout, rather than just that one section. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:No, that was not vandalism, that was an a good edit that was discussed on this talk page. Please revert yourself unless you can support with several specific issues in the article so we can fix them and get rid of those tags.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::The IP editor should have explained the changes, however I moved them back as I can see they were combined by someone else. I kept the NPOV one as that was where it originally lived and should not have been moved to the bottom. I also added the cite-check per the comments from Raggz. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The IP editor did explain the change. Look at the edit summaries -- "See Talk". [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Incorrect. The change in question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&diff=184935662&oldid=184594073 here] did not have an edit summary, nor did the user make a comment on the talk page. If someone wishes to refer to a previous conversation they need to refer to it. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That was me and I know I typed something in there so I don't know what the problem is. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 12:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::The onus is on the editor to ensure a change is explained. If you explain any changes on the talk page then you can't go wrong. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, but if you follow the talk Raggz objections have yet to bear out any actual citation issues upon investigation.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Giovanni33, have you actually read the contested citation? If not, please read it before offering an opinion. Do you assert that (1) the text references the [[Cuban American Foundation]] and (2) that the citation mentions this organization? The citation does not mention the [[Cuban American Foundation]], so why is it included? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The place that Raggz seems to have a legitimate stake is the article's conflating the CANF with a similarly named organization in the source material. ''(I have not investigated to see if the article shows how the two organizations might be related)'' However what '''CAF''' has to do with the repositioning of tags - I cannot for the life of me understand. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Red has it about right.
:::::*We cannot claim that the Cuban-American National ''Council'' (funded by the US State Department) is an alleged state terrorist entity ''only'' because it has a similar name to the Cuban-American National ''Foundation''.
:::::*We cannot claim that the Cuban-American National ''Foundation'' ('''not''' funded by the US State Department) is an alleged state terrorist entity funded by the US, only because we have a cite where a different organization has a similar name (the Cuban-American National ''Council'') and does have US funding.

:::::I don't know what the tags are, so cannot reply on that. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

== Lack of connection between Cuban allegations and the US ==

I expect to delete the folowing citation since it only makes allegations against CANF, and none against the US.
*^'' Investigator from Cuba takes stand in spy trial Miami Herald''
There seems no point to discussing it unless there is ALSO some link between the US and CANF? Such a link is needed, and the absense creates a SYN error. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

== RFC ==

How many here consider Raggz' recent objections to the article to be bad-faith attempts to delete material?

He doesn't even seem to have a basic grasp of the policies he's referring to. When a challenge is rejected, he simply grabs at another WP policy to try and find one that will stick. This seems like "wikilawyering" to me. Does anyone else here agree? [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:This question is absurd. I suggest that nobody answer it. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::How is that question absurd? It's the behavior that appears absurd to me and it's already been implied in the comments of three other posters here and I'm just asking for comments openly not going out to e-mail. What's wrong with that? [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 12:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::This is not a formally filed RFC and we don't do RFC's on users within articles. If you want, 218, you can file a formal user [[WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users|request for comment]] on Raggz' editorial practices, though it might be a bit premature for that. I have found Raggz' editing to be [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and have already said so but article talk is not the appropriate place to discuss user behavior in any kind of detail. Let's try to continue to keep it civil and if problems persist then folks can choose to move on to the more advanced stages of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]].--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::That IP is Stone put to sky. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== Operation Northwoods ==

''"A secret plan, Operation Northwoods, was approved by the the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted for action to Robert McNamara[33] then Secretary of Defense, and subsequently president of the World Bank. This plan included acts of violence on US soil or against US interests, such as plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities; blowing up a U.S. ship, and contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plan was rejected by the administration prior to John F. Kennedy's assassination but after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.[34][35]"''

Nothing in the text above relates to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It belongs in another article. Discussion and the REJECTION of state terrorism almost 50 years ago is ''irrelevant to our article.'' I propose deletion of this material. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::Who wants to take this one on? Tag me and I'm "it"!! [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Probably could be phrased differently, but I think this is relevant information for this article. Not that anyone has time to discuss it now since there are so many other threads. Raggz, I ask you again, ''please stop'' bringing up new sections for discussion. PLEASE. It is making it impossible to have a real discussion. There are literally over 50 subsections which have been created in the last few days and only a few editors working on this. Please show me (and everyone else) some good faith and let discussion on the 40-odd threads you've opened proceed and achieve some consensus instead of adding 2-5 new threads every day or so. It is not a good way to work on things and the more you continue that practice the less willing (I think) you will find editors will be to work with you. Please reply on this point, thanks.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I am committed to [[WP|Consensus]], and believe that a reasonable amount of time is an absolute requirement for this policy. I once agreed to a three day informal period, but everyone who requested it ignored it and edited without even discussion. You are editing in good-faith and deserve respect and and good-faith effort in return. I suggest reducing your editorial load to a more manageable level. There is no need however, to feel rushed.

::::Each discussion topic needs its own section. When and if discussion on Operation Northwoods reaches consensus or tacit consensus, we then may edit the Operation Northwoods material. If we do not have a section to discuss Operation Northwoods, we can never know when tacit consensus has been attained.

::::Here is a specific question: What state terrorism is alleged with Operation Northwoods? There seems to be none. Apparently there was a plan that included elements of state terrorism and this plan was then evaluated and was denied. Why is a fifty year old plan that was never accepted as policy relevant to this topic? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, in order to discuss Operation Northwoods we need a section on it, obviously. But there was no need to bring it up while we were discussing 40 other things--it could wait. Again, I ask you to please stop bringing up new topics while we are still discussing dozens of others, okay? It's a simple request, and I see no reason why you can not agree to it since other problems you might have can easily be discussed in a week or two. Suggesting reducing my editorial load has nothing to do with it and quite frankly that came off as a bit patronizing. The discussion is far too confusing and difficult to follow as it is--I'm asking that you not exacerbate that further by adding more sections. Will you agree to this for the time being? Please answer with a yes or a no.

:::::I think the Operation Northwoods section is relevant because it represents (assuming it's true) planned state terrorism by the US that was ultimately not pursued. It doesn't fit perfectly within the title of the article, but so long as we present it correctly (stressing immediately that it was apparently not implemented, assuming this was true) I do not see a problem and think it is quite relevant to the topic of the article. If most people feel it does not belong I would not have much of a problem removing it.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::I will compromise on this. Instead of removal, may we will write the section to inform the Reader that:
::::::*Nothing actually happened forty years ago, that it was a plan.
::::::*that no one alleges state terrorism ever ocurred.
::::::*that no one alleged state terrorism at that time.
::::::*that the [[Church Commission]] changed US policy to prevent similar plans 20 years ago

::::::Do we have consensus on these points? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know yet without seeing the specifics, so draft up a revision and put it in this section of talk so we can hash it out. Will you agree to not add any new sections while we work on this and other existing issues? I would appreciate an answer to this.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:: While I am willing to listen in on what Raggz might have to offer, I do not understand how his point number three above ("no one alleged state terrorism at the time") could have any substance. At the time, much of the incriminating information concerning what is now commonly referred to as "the Secret War" against Cuba was classified. Moreover, "terrorism" as a term in popular discourse was not nearly as widely used at the time. Largely thanks to this secrecy as well as official projections of a benign US role in the world, people at the time had a pretty naive understanding of US foreign operations. Experience, including that of Vietnam, Indonesia, and numerous examples in Latin America has changed perceptions and resulted in a greater predisposition towards critical assessment of the US role, both within and outside the US, and within and outside scholarship.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We agree that Cuba was then central within the Cold War and that unless the Cold War was state terrorism, the Cuban Cold War issues were not either?

:::You make an excellent point about covert US policy. I propose a short section on the [[Church Commission]] which was the watershed event that forever changed US covert action. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't agree with your first statement, assuming I understand it. If "the Cold War" (a rather amorphous topic) was not state terrorism (and clearly in a general sense it was not--part of the Cold War was diplomats having meetings which is not terrorism) this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the US has been accused of committing state terrorism in Cuba. I don't see a need for a section on the Church Commission and don't even know why you are proposing it exactly.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Cuba was one of the central battles of the Cold War. We are discussing allegations that the US Cold War strategy for Cuba was actually state terrorism. There was nothing unique about the covert war with Cuba, it was all about the Cold War and the USSR, this was going on worldwide. There was a Covert World War (or Cold War). Cuba invaded three neighbors in 1959 and was expected to invade the US (Puerto Rico) at any point. The Cold War in Turkey caused the USSR to base nukes in Cuba. People in the US were digging bombshelters in their backyards because (in part) of Cuba. Our Cuban material is mostly about the Cold War. Why were a half million angry Cuban refugees in Miami? The Cold War. They had a revolution and instead got a Cold War Stalinist regieme. No one fled Cuba initially, they only fled when the Cold War intruded, when freedom of the press and all civil liberties were lost. They then hated Castro and the US feared him, a natural alliance. This is the context missing from our Cuban material. How can you not see the relevance? We make it sound like the US decided one day, hey, let's run a covert war against Cuba. This denies NPOV bigtime and you know it is not accurate ...

:::::Sure, there was a lot more to the Cold War than covert battles and covert wars, but these were going on worldwide, exactly like with Cuba. Insurgents were funded, trained, and equipped. If it was state terrorism in Cuba then it was state terrorism worldwide. We should tell the whole story. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::The Cold War ended and the US decided to overhaul covert operations law, state terrorism law. The Church Commission was this tipping point when US law regarding state terrorism fundamentally changed. This is very important. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== Cuba Statement to the United Nations 2001 since the Cuban revolution ==

Read http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/L3028.doc.htm
''"In Miami, safe shelter was offered to those who funded, planned and carried out terrorist acts with absolute impunity, tolerated by the United States Government."'' Again Cuba alleges that US immigtation and extradition policy is a form of state terrorism. This citation has no other allegations against the US. I am fine with revising this article to make this allegation, but presently immigration policy as terrorism is not a topic. This article does not address any form of [[state terrorism]] in that article or this, so requires deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::Errhhhhhhh....are you suggesting that Cuba's allegations against the U.S. are somehow less remarkable than the U.S.'s allegations against Cuba? Just wondering. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::This charge has nothing to do with the US immigration policy. It has to do with the US harboring terrorists and allowing, and sometimes funding, their terrorist plots, without criminal prosecution. Are you implying that US immigration policy toward Cuba singles out terrorist cells for welcome as part of policy, or that all Cuban immigrants are terrorists? Because either premise is false, and is the only way you can implicate US immigration policy itself as a form of terrorism (even though this would still be Synthesis since no source says this.)[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::THAT would be interesting and MOST relevant, a reliable source that the US funds terrorists. Do you have this?

:::There are numerous reliable sources that Cuba is harboring terrorists wanted by the US, and funding international terrorism. I have not included these because they are somewhat irrelevant to this topic. Are you suggesting that US courts have [[jurisdiction]] to enforce Venezulean law?

:::''"This charge has nothing to do with the US immigration policy."'' The article has several references where Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism because the US immigration and extradition policies permits them to live in the US.

:::''"Errhhhhhhh....are you suggesting that Cuba's allegations against the U.S. are somehow less remarkable than the U.S.'s allegations against Cuba? Just wondering.'' It is obvious that this is true. Cuba is the plantiff in a large lawsuit against the US, which denies Cuba any degree of objectivity. It makes charges through its state-owned media that are (1) absurd and (2) not echoed by any member of the "mainstream media". Read [[WP:REDFLAG]]. The first condition is subjective but the second is not. All that is required to deny this challenge is a mainstream media echo of Cuba's absurd claims. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== Citation Request by RedPenofDoom ==

user: RedPenofDoom posted a fact tag in the following sentence:

:"The Cuban revolution resulted in a large US Cuban refugee community, some of whom have conducted sustained long-term insurgency campaigns against Cuba.[27] and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades. Initially these efforts are known to have been directly supported by the United States government.[citation needed]"

Earlier today I came across the following when I was reading....(does it satisfy the need for a citation?)

:"JMWAVE operated from Building 25 at the University of Miami's South Campus, a former U.S. Navy installation. Ted Shackley, a rising CIA star, was in charge as station chief from early 1962 through mid-1965. Some three or four hundred agents toiled under Shackley's leadership, making JMWAVE the largest CIA station in the world after the headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Additional CIA officers worked the Cuba account at Langley and elsewhere. With its estimated budget of $50 million a year (in 1960's dollars) the Miami station's economic impact on South Florida was tremendous." (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,p.130)

: "A declassified CIA document dated April 23, 1963, shows eight exile organizations were receiving money, and only two- the Revolutionary Student Directorate (DRE) and the Movement for Revolutionary Recovery (MRR) - were engaged in paramilitary activity against Cuba. The biggest recipient was the Cuban Revolutionary Council, formed by the CIA as a front group for the Bay of Pigs invasion. It broke with the agency in April 1963."(Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books, p.135)

: "Among the more widely known Miami exile groups of the day, in addition to the DRE and the MRR, were Alpha 66, the Second National Front of Escambray, Commandos L, the Insurrectional Revolutionary Recovery Movement (MIRR), the Thirtieth of November Movement, and the Peoples Revolutionary Movement (MRP), which later joined with other groups to become the Cuban Revolutionary Junta (JURE). The JURE, headed by Manuel Ray, and the MRR, headed by Manuel Artime, were both supported by the U.S. government in post-missile crisis period but operated as so-called autonomous groups." (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,135)
:"Those Cuban exiles recruited and trained by the CIA as part of infiltration and commando teams or as support personnel for JMWAVE operations were much more discreet. Typical is the experience of Carlos Obregon, today the Miami representative for a Venezuelan publishing firm...The CIA had asked the DRE leadership to select some fifteen members for training in clandestine warfare, and Obregon was among those selected...They were taken to a motel near Homestead, just south of Miami on the fringe of the Florida Everglades, to begin their training...The course was cut short after two weeks, with the CIA complaining that the local press had been nosing around. The trainees were temporarily relocated to the Miami Beach area. A short time later they were taken to a site near North Key Largo at the top of the Florida Keys where training resumed in what was then a much less populated area...On some days during the latter stages of the Key Largo exercise, the group was split into smaller units and taken for a full day's training at a site in the Everglades...There they received instructions in the operation and use of various types of pistols, submachine guns, and C3 and C4 explosives...Finishing the course in the second quarter of 1962, Obregon was assigned to a team and flown to what he later learned was "The Farm," the CIA's super-secret training facility near Williamsburg, Virginia...Then it was back to Miami for maritime training, including learning to operate small boats, rubber rafts, and electronic navigational equipment; and the uses of infrared light and the metascope in infiltration and exfiltration operations. Classroom training was at a "safe house" near the main entrance to Everglades National Park." etc. (Bohning,Don. The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965, Potomac Books,137-138)

: (Don Bohning is the former Latin American editor of The Miami Herald.)[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::The key phrase for inclusion needs to be "state terrorism". Of course not every citation needs to have this phrase, but when they do not, one need ask what point do that make that relates to "state terrorism".

::There is a presumption often expressed here that military operations against Cuba, sabotage by Cuban refugees living within the US, US covert operations against Cuba, economic sanctions, strategic planning against Cuba, and many other similar actions are [[state terrorism]]. Few of these presumptive claims are supported by reliable sources, and the text above is an excellent example. If used to claim state terrorism this would be a policy violation [[WP:SYN|Synthesis]]. To be applicable to this article, it would need to involve references relating to state terrorism, which it does not have. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:Raggz is not using a standard he is just talking about what he thinks not wikipedia guidelines. The source is goode and does what it needs to. The source is about the statement before it and that is a supporting statement from Cuba, that Granma article says state terrorism and this is OK. Raggz is wrong. [[Special:Contributions/218.160.176.184|218.160.176.184]] ([[User talk:218.160.176.184|talk]]) 09:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::The material above was submitted specifically to address the historical background claim being made to the effect that some Cuban exiles received government support and were trained in the Everglades. As to the notion that "few presumptive claims" of U.S. state terrorism are supported by reliable sources - well, they are in fact abundant in this article. Raggz is in denial. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 13:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The source would seem to satisfy my concern about the statement: "these efforts are known to have been directly supported by the United States government."[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm not in denial, I'm trying to focus our attention upon what our sources actually say. I even added one that supports the CIA covert war claim. There was a covert war against Cuba, what is lacking is the broad Cold War context, Cubas invasions of their neighbors, their plan to invade the US (Puerto Rico) and annex US territory, the very real threat of thermonuclear attack from Cuba, etc. Was the entire Cold War state terrorism by the US? If so, then yes, Cuba was as well. If the Cold War was not, then the Cuban material should be in the Cold War article.

::::Back to our focus: What is the last date where the US was directly involved with a covert war against Cuba? This is a key date because we canot use material later (like a 1976 plane bombing) in this article without a US link.

::::Our article asserts state terrorism in the opening of the Cuban section. Read the first two, they are entirely allegations that Cuban terrorists living in the US are not being extradited to Cuba or Nicuragua for trial, an issue tried and resolved in federal court. What we have here is an allegation (indirectly) that the US Federal Court that refused to extradite Posada committed an act of state terrorism. I reject the claim that this decision was an act of state terrorism. Who wants to debate that it was?

::::Let us look at the third source. It too alleges that the US Federal Court committed state terrorism by rfusing to extradite Posda and others. It goes further: ''"The first witness on this subject was Antonia Panteleón, a colonel in State Security, who gave a long statement about the forms of terrorism utilized by the CIA, among them the organization of counterrevolutionary groups and bands from 1959 to 1961. She explained that those organizations—and even their leadership—were infiltrated by Cuban agents, and they were later disbanded at the time of the mercenary invasion."'' This source suggests (indirectly by analysis) that the ONLY US state terrorism issue after 1961 was the failure of the US Federal Court to extradite Posada and others. (Consider as well that this source is a statement by the plantiff in an 18 billion dollar law suit and is not echoed by a mainstream media source.)

::::I am fine with a potential consensus that the Cuban section sources support two allegations (and no others). If there are sources for others, fine, but I have not seen these.
::::*That the CIA had a covert war against Cuba (in the Cold War context) that ended at some undefined point in the early 1960's.
::::*That Cuba alleges that the actions and inactions of the US Federal Courts and law enforcement agencies were act of state terrorism in regard to US Extradition/immigration policy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== New Reference for state-sponsored terrorism by US against Cuba from peer-reviewed journal ==

Earlier, I had submitted a quotation from Harvard professor Jorge I. Dominquez describing U.S. actions in Cuba as state-sponsored terrorism. What follows is an excerpt written by Louis A. Perez, professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, from an article entitled "Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro" which appeared in the The Journal of Latin American Studies.
: "Covert action played an important role in support of US objectives, principally by laying siege to the Cuban economy and thereby making the island all the more susceptible to economic sanctions. For more than a decade, the United States engaged in acts that today would be understood as state-sponsored terrorism, including scores of assassination attempts at Fidel Castro, the infiltration of sabotage teams, and the disruption of Cuban agricultural and industrial production capacities. The CIA was specifically enjoined to stress economic sabotage." (Perez, Louis A. Fear and Loathing of Fidel Castro: Sources of U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, The Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 54, May 2002) (Perez goes into considerable more detail concerning the methods,targets and impacts of the terrorist activities.)[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::There is no doubt that US actions against Cuba in that era ''might'' be considered state terrorism ''if they happened today''. Any use of force ''today'' by any nation is regarded as state terrorism by someone. Cuba even alleges that US immigration policy today is state terrorism.

::I like the careful use of language, "engaged in acts that today would be understood as state-sponsored terrorism". Many of my objections would be met if we simply were as careful with language as is Jorge I. Dominquez. He does not allege that the US ever engaged in actual terrorism, but that it engaged in acts that TODAY would lead to such an accusation. The good part about his work is that he makes it clear what he means. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
: You should read more carefully. The excerpt above was not written by Jorge I Dominquez, it was written by Louis A. Perez, as my lead-in clearly indicated. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::OK. I like the language, "would be understood today". This statement is true of the entire Cold War, for which Cuba was arguably the primary battle. (The nuking of Japan would be a war crime ''today'', but that law did not ''then'' exist.) I am challenging all of the Cuban material on the [[WP:SYN]] policy ground. Clearly this article belongs with the Cuban material IF there is to be any Cuban material. This source does not provide the missing source to link anything in Cuba to state terrorism, he does not allege state terrorism. I like the language. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism ==

''"According to [[Ricardo Alarcón]], President of [[National Assembly of Cuba|Cuba’s national assembly]] "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century and he cited US immigration and extradition policies as a current form of state terrorism.”''

How should we describe [[Ricardo Alarcón]]'s allegations? He clearly is discussing US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism. How may we include his quote and properly put it into context? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'll take your posting of this new section as an answer of "no" to the question I asked a few sections above (twice if not three times, see "Operation Northwoods") about holding off on new topics until a number of existing issues are resolved. I don't know what you are quoting here. This is a generally problem with your posts Raggz. I assume this is from a news article, please provide a link to that news article here so we can evaluate the statement in its original context.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::This quote is from the cite supporting the opening Cuban sentence. The first or second reference, first I believe. This was raised because this is one of the three sources that link the US to state terrorism in Cuba. The inadequacies of these are why there is a [[WP:SYN]] policy challenge.

::I propose editing the definition of terrorism to include the Cuban version. For Cuba, terrorism includes the refusal of the US Federal Court to extradite Posada to Venezuela. Since we have the sources already in, why not add the Cuban definition? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::'''comment''' Raggz, can you PLEASE start limiting your comments to just a few sections until concensus has been reached on those topics. Continually leaving the middle of a discussion to start another section and then in the middle of that discussion dropping back to re-ignite 3 or 4 discussions that had dried up when you jumped to creating new topics is not productive way for the group to reach consensus on any item. Please LIMIT your comments to one or two items until consensus has been reached on those points.

:::With regard to your specific request in this thread to 'include the cuban definition', please clearly post what exactly you would like the section to read. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I am listening and will TRY. One or two might be too few. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Philippines ==

There is no good reason why our entire editing agenda should be consumed by user:Raggz's frequently spurious interventions. Stone Put to the Sky had initiated some discussion about re-inserting the Philippines section, which had previously been blanked without any discussion by user:TDC. I retrieved the old material and put it to my sandbox...[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BernardL/Sandbox2]]...Please indicate if the you think the material is ready for inclusion, and/or feel free to make or discuss any changes that might lead to its improvement. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 13:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you BernardL for being proactive with improving the article. I think the original wholesale blanking was wrong to begin with, and was done without consensus. This was a time this article was under attack and many sections were outright blanked without good cause. Unfortunately, that section was not restored as the article became protected for several months. I think its correct to take this careful approach by working on improving the material and seeking comment here prior to inclusion, although I think that the default possition should be inclusion unless there is clear consensus to not include it (since its removal was done without consensus). The material looks good and I hope other editors contribute or comment on it.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Sections requesting discussion of the Philippines section have been open for about a month. For my part, although I think the proposed section is not perfect, I think it was unjustly blanked without any discussion. Since thre are no substantive objections, the section should be re-inserted, anyone with specific issues should bring them up here in talk. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I am fine with your exercising your editorial vision. The former weakness was that the material was entirely in violation of [[WP:SYN]], a weakness that when corrected would permit reverting. A strong reliable source that links the events to state terrorism is necessary. Without this link, the material violated policy in my opinion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::That's interesting that you are so familiar with what the "former weakness" was; i presume you have looked up the diffs and gone back to do your research. Good for you! You're improving!
::However, i would like to ask: just where is the "synthesis" involved? The section is divided into three parts: the first establishes that there are some serious human rights violations taking place in the Philippines, that they are widely acknowledged by the International community, and that there are multiple, notable Philippino sources which accuse the United States of complicity and support for these acts of state terrorism. In those sources we have a Catholic priest who heads up a major human rights organization that has been recognized with at least three national awards from the governments of three different European countries; we have a Professor from the University of the Philippines; we have the largest labor organization in the Philippines; we have the paraphrased testimony of a Philipino senator; and we have several articles by a Fulbright Scholar, Professor, and human rights organizer; all of these explicitly use the phrase "state terrorism" and associate it directly with the United States. Do you feel something else is needed?
::Moving on, the next passage demonstrates that the International community acknowledges that the actions fit the definition of State Terrorism as outlined in this article and gives details about the undeniable connections with the Philippine military and government.
::The next demonstrates that the U.S. presence in the Philippines is extremely powerful, that the U.S. exercises fundamental -- perhaps primary -- influence over the Philippines' military, that there has recently been a dramatic increase in military and personnel exchanges between the two countries, and finally that the U.S. has publicly acknowledged its presence will contribute to "human rights violations" and has taken steps to protect its soldiers from prosecution.
::The next section describes a specific instance wherein the Government of the Philippines has been widely condemned as either complicit in or directly sponsoring State Terror and goes on to document at least two instances where the activities of this particular individual have been directly linked to U.S. aid.
::The final section outlines the clear complicity and wide international condemnation of the Philippine government and concludes with an explicit condemnation of U.S. state terrorism by a notable source: the Permanent People's Tribunal, Philippines. The PPT is an organization that was expressly created to explore and help establish international law; it has existed for well over 35 years; and it is currently organized via the Bertrand Russel Society, which is itself explicitly neutral regarding its political, governmental, or religious affiliations and cooperations.
::I am perfectly happy to see this all cleaned up a bit -- i do think it could be clearer -- but in light of the five or six sources that obviously associate the words "state terrorism" with the United States it seems to me that your protests of some sort of "synthesis" just don't make any sense. Perhaps i'm missing something? Why don't you explain a bit. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== Order of content ==

Does it make sense to re-order the content starting with the section on Asia, because Asia comes first alphabetically and the events in Japan are first historically as well. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
: I think you have a sensible idea. As far as I know the only reason that the articles are in their current order is due to their chronological order of creation. I am not efficient at re-ordering, but,(according to me) you should feel free to do so. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::Of course I support your idea to reorganize. [[WP:BOLD]] [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Now that contentious editing has moved to multiple parts of the article including the section in question, I am going to wait until the editing settles down so that it will be easier to follow the history of edits and reverts. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 19:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed ==

However you want to argue about the morals of it, the bombings were legitimate acts of war, done by in-uniform members of the United States armed forces, and as such, do not fit any definition of terrorism. This article isn't entitled "Criticism of military actions taken by the United States in World War II" and should try not to be a fishing expedition for anything the US has done that someone may not have liked. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:That may be your opinion, however many notable scholars, as reported in this article, clearly think otherwise: i.e. they see this as a major act of State terror by the US. For you to advocate that we ignore this wealth of scholarship on the question and delete it all simply because you personally believe it is not is the height of absurdity, and not the way WP functions. Its not what we do here. And you are totally wrong about this act not meeting definitinf of State Terrorism. The basic definition of State terrorism involves the states use of violence that is principally targeting Civilians to achieve a purpose that is psychological in nature, i.e. militarily second. This fits exactly what the scholars allege the US perpetrated in its great horror against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that it occurred in the context of the word does not in any way preclude these facts.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:: (ec with Giovanni) The idea that "the bombings were legitimate acts of war" is your opinion, and that section of the article cites several experts (Michael Walzer, Howard Zinn, Richard Falk, etc.) who disagree with you there. There are a number of credible folks who view Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of state terrorism. As such the section is very appropriate for this article. You're of course free to disagree with their assessment, but simply asserting that the bombings were legitimate acts of war does not warrant removal. Turkish authorities may claim that the [[Armenian genocide]] was a legitimate act of war (and believe me I'm not saying the two actions were equivalent), but of course that does not mean we have to describe it that way, though we would of course want to include the official Turkish point of view on the matter, just as we should include the official US view--or the view of US sympathetic scholars--in this article. I think the real problem with this section of the article is that it does not include opposing views (of which there are a whole bunch) which argue that the bombings in Japan were justified and (either implicitly or explicitly) that they were not state terrorism. Would you be willing to help work on adding some material on this? I could try to see what I can find. I know of some work that tries to summarize the scholarly literature on the topic and hardly any of this literature refers to the bombing as "state terrorism" which I think is worth pointing out.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Source'''. I dug into my old copies of ''Diplomatic History'' to find the essay I was thinking of, an April 2005 piece by J. Samuel Walker called "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground." It's probably the best recent overview of the literature on this issue, published by the leading journal of US diplomatic history, and written by one of the most respected scholars of the atomic bombing of Japan (he wrote a book about it). He basically details the debates between the "traditionalist" and "revisionist" schools and discusses new arguments. I'll check more carefully, but I don't think the question of whether the bombings were "state terrorism" ever comes up in the literature he describes. As Walker notes "The fundamental issues that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States." I think that is quite accurate, and it implicitly make the point that whether or not it was state terrorism is very much ''not'' the issue. It seems to me that we should point out that scholars have traditionally not concerned themselves with this question and I think that might help to allay some of Jtrainor's concerns and the concerns that other editors have brought up in the past. There are almost certainly other ways to get at the "not state terrorism" side of the argument but I think including something along these lines might be useful. Thoughts?--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] |
[[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I like your thoughts, and I've tried to do with with talking about the general range of consensus regarding the issue of the bombings, but just briefly. My concern here is that we do not get off track from the scope of this section and subject, but stick to the claims (and counter claims) dealing with scholarship surrounding the subject, i.e. dropping these bombs as acts of state terror. I think its perfectly fine, thought, to say that the main question scholars have looked at was the "fundamental issue," that has divided scholars, as part of laying out the basic academic ground (but only briefly so we dont get off tracked and create a fork--these belong in the main article on the subject). I do think there is room to explore the sympathetic side, and I found one source that argues that point of view, and deals with the claims of state terrorism. He actually acknowledges that it was State Terror but that sometimes state terror is justified, because...Perhaps we can explore his views a bit more since he represents an historian who supports these bombings (but not give too much weight).[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::There are allegations for state terrorism for every military activity ever undertaken by the United States including the Revolutionary War. I intend to begin adding these, eventually. They all belong here. The nuking of Japan was considered for legality by a distinguished international judicial tribunal, and no violation of law was found. I believe that we should address these allegations - and dismiss them as unfounded by citing the international judicial tribunal. Do we have consensus for this? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We can (and should) certainly include the international tribunal's conclusion about the bombing, so long as we have a source of course. We cannot dismiss the allegations as unfounded--we should merely report the varying views as dictated by our NPOV policy. I would also note that if you want to include allegations "for every military activity ever undertaken by the United States" you are going to have to have reliable sources which actually accuse the US of state terrorism in each and every action. That seems highly unlikely to me. I'm not aware of anyone who refers to colonist actions during the Revolutionary War as "state terrorism" (for one thing, technically speaking, there was not even a "state" yet). --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::You might want to get a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is rich in alternative history. In adition to documenting the British WMD attack upon the colonists, I believe that it documents that the Revolutionary War was state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Please read [[OJ Simpson]]. There was a legally binding determination of guilt made. Millions of people have written that it was the wrong decision. Does that article attain NPOV by mentioning the verdict and then retrying the case giving 50% of the space to arguing that the court was wrong? Does [[OJ Simpson]] outline all of the charges in great detail? No, the trial is over, the verdict is in. Should there be a debate in an encyclopedia about alleged state terorism by the United States in regard to any issue AFTER a valid international legal tribunal makes a finding? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Raggz, I don't understand what exactly you are trying to do but how is another article supposed to dictate how this particular article should be written? It is not even the case that the two are related in any significant way or that the OJ Simpson article is considered the epitome of how an article should be written. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::We are discussing how to apply the NPOV policy. [[OJ Simpson]] is an example of how to handle a controversy that has been decided legally. NPOV does not mean a huge debate with the outlining of arguments, but a summarization of the facts. A legal decision is a fact. An argument is not a fact. Hiroshima was legally settled. That should be mentioned, and not very much is really relevant, is it? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: I think I was not clear enough. What I am saying is that the [[OJ Simpson]] may be an example of an NPOV debate but how it was solved does not necessarily reflect on how this debate should be solved. A legal decision is of course a fact but it is not the only fact. It only stands for what it is and it should be stated as what it is. IMHO this does not mean that any opposing view should be scrapped. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Would it be possible to offer an article that has debated the results of a legal decision AFTER it was made? I do not really have a clear vision of how you suggest that NPOV is attained by debating ''after'' the verdict? I disagree that debating a decison is generally a good approach ''within an encyclopedia''. An example of an article that does this and makes it work would be very helpful. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Raggz, this is not what I am saying at all. I am not suggesting debating the results of a legal decision. I am suggesting giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision. This has nothing to do with debating the results of a decision but rather with debating the events that preceded the legal proceedings. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm very much in agreement with Ubardak's thinking on the OJ thing, which seems altogether not analogous to what we are discussing here. I have read Zinn's ''People's History'' and indeed assign a couple of chapters as suggested reading when I teach a US history survey course (it's a cool book and in line with my politics, but certainly not at all up to snuff in terms of the best historical scholarship). He is quite critical of certain aspects of the American Revolutionary War effort and is particularly attentive to issues of class, race, and gender. I don't, however, recall where he "documents that the Revolutionary War was state terrorism." Raggz if you find the pages where he does this I think a section along those lines would be warranted. Please provide those page numbers here.

I look forward to returning the conversation to the topic of "The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed" and related issues, which is the name of the thread. I'd offered a source on this issue, and just noticed Giovanni responded to that, so maybe we can get back to that soon.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:''"I am suggesting giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision. This has nothing to do with debating the results of a decision but rather with debating the events that preceded the legal proceedings."'' We need probably need to move to arbitration next? My view of an encyclopedia does not included offering a voice to anyone. I rspect your honest and articulate summary of your position. Should we move to arbitration, or is there another means to pursue consensus? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:: (edit conflict with Ubardak) I think you mean [[WP:MEDIATION|mediation]]. Arbitration is a big nasty step, that I don't think anyone wants. See [[WP:ARBCOM]]. [[User:Silly rabbit|Silly rabbit]] ([[User talk:Silly rabbit|talk]]) 06:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

: My understanding of an encyclopedia article is that it has NPOV which, again in my opinion, would dictate listening to both sides. By "giving a voice" I simply meant this. I did not mean biasing or editorializing. I doubt we are the only people who would be interested in a consensus on this matter and I am very new to this particular discussion so I would rather not comment on the need for quickly moving to arbitration. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 06:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The point Raggz is trying to make is that if you list something that was beyond a doubt considered a legal act of war at the time (regardless of morality), then you open up a huge can of worms since folks could use it to add any military operation ever performed by the US that someone doesn't like to the article. The line on genocide definitely needs to be removed from that section as it is plain idiotic: by what criteria could it be considered genocide? It was at no time an objective of the US military to obliterate the Japanese people, and in fact, the strategic bombings of various cities caused far more casualities than the nuclear devices did.

As a matter of fact, I'm removing that line right now. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:''"Arbitration is a big nasty step, that I don't think anyone wants."'' Thank you, but I do not consider any part of the dispute resolution process to include any "big nasty steps". That would imply a personal conflict that does not exist. Ubardak and I are editors engaged in a collegial debate about what an encyclopedia is about. He supports "''giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision"'' of the legal tribunal. I respect Ubardak's approach, and I respect those who hold this view. We however appear to have reached an impasse, and I have too much respect for him to believe that he will modify his view on this only because our perspectives differ. The dispute resolution process is how we resolve such conflicts? There is nothing personal implied or intended. I may be mistaken about what the point of the article is? If so, you will notice that I will take that and there will be no further issues from me on that. If instead, I engage Ubardak and challenge his personal view, confront him, this would be unproductive and might be taken personally. Mediation would be my choice if the other editor and I had difficulty communicating effectively. This is not the case, Ubarek communicates exceptionally well and I believe that we understand each other. So Silly rabbit and Ubarek (or anyone), what advice do you have for resolving our dispute about this issue? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:Was WWII state terrorisim by the US? I propose a new section that examines this allegation. For the Japanese section many of the issues we will need include are at: http://hnn.us/articles/13989.html I am inclined against my own proposal and prefer to drop WWII entirely. Since there are allegations involving WWII we can get into WWII if we really want to. I could be persuded either way, but it will be a LOT of work to write that section. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm open for adding in any material that is germane to the topic and from reliable sources. What do you have specifically? Please quote and give source. Then we can consider adding it. Thanks. Btw, I read Zinn's book in High School, and then again years later, and I do not recall him making claims that the American Revolutionary War was state terrorism. I think you have a tendency to play fast and lose with what the sources actually say, and instead substitute your own SYN interpretation, which often times is simply completely inaccurate.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::THAT is the type of statement that can really slow the work to build consensus, claiming that another editor lacks integrity. I'm sure that my statement was properly qualified, because I am trying to recall the source and I only think it was that one. Now that you have attacked my integrity I think it fair to ask you to check and see if I made an unfair claim. I am certain that he got into the use of biological warfare. Once you check and apologize, I will forget that you ever said that. In the end it was good to get that out, because it now can be resolved and we can perhaps develop a bit more trust? So, what did I clim about Zinn? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not questioning your integrity, only the veracity of your statements, which I assumed you to be honestly mistaken, and perhaps a result of the memory issues you attribute your forgetfulness to. For all I know that is true--you get it wrong simply because you don't recall correctly. I merely point out that fact without making any personal judgments about your character (which is not relevant here). Also, since you are making the claim, you have the burden to support that claim by quoting the source. Please don't leave it up to your memory. My memory tells me Zinn said no such thing, and I don't have problems with my memory (although I could be wrong). But since you want to add the claim, please look it up and provide a support for that which you want to add. That is the fair standard to apply. My other comment was that even when you do have a source and read the source, what you often do is apply your own rather unique interpretation and conclusion so what the source is actually saying, and I have (as well as other editors) found that to be not accurate. Again, this is only an observation, with no implications as to why this is occurring. This is why I recommend you quote the source so we can all agree it is saying what you think its saying. I hope this makes sense. I also will note that you sidestepped and ignored my main point. You allege that there is an allegation that all of WW11 was State Terrorism--yet you failed to show one source that makes such a claim. Before we talking about adding such a section, we need to see lots of good sources (like we have for the Japan section). I've reviewed the literature and do not believe this allegation to exist as it was blur any distinction between war and terrorism (which is just one tactic used in warfare). We are interested in these tactics used by States, in particular the US--not an entire war.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I think taking a step back and trying to see if the whole WWII was state terrorism would be counterproductive to handling the issue at hand. Furthermore, I believe it has the danger of pushing us to false reasoning by saying "WWII was not state terrorism and therefore each individual part (i.e. any individual act) of WWII was not state terrorism either.". I think we should not dilute the issue at hand and try to agree on whether or not we need to include statements on both the tribunal outcome and how there are indeed people who believe using weapons of mass destruction indiscriminantly on civilian populations constitutes state terrorism. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'''MORAL AUTHORITY'''
BernardL just reverted text citing morality as an issue for state terrorism, correctly asserting that what is legal may not be moral. (I assume that a reliable source for this would be found.) Every article has a natural scope. Do we want to expand into moral authority? This would be fun and interesting, particularly the nexus between religion and morality. I am inclined to oppose BernardL's idea. We do not have a reliable source for moral authority to condem legal acts as terrorism? It might be beyond the natural limits of the article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
: This is supposed to be a different section right? :) --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
: You've raised this issue elsewhere, and below, so I'll repeat my suggestion here. I suggest you let the available sources on the issue (claims of state terrorism committed by the US) guide our content for this article, as well as the discussion. This is a practical because we are delimited by those constraints for building this encyclopedic article. Simply provide a reliable source and quotes its content, and then suggest how to add its information to the article. If there is some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others on the basis of a morality despite its alleged legality (at the time), or any objection on any other basis--provided it calls it State Terrorism and its by the US---then it may be quite suitable to mention that. This is ofcourse provided its a reliable source, and we review what the source says, and have consensus about how to represent it in the article.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::This makes sense.
::*There will be discussion about this in the section's opening sentence, so the Reader would immediately know the context.

::*There would need be good links
::*the definitions section would need to be updated to conform with those used within the article.

::It seems important to me to address important allegations, regardless of our views, and this is a perfect example. The

::Key for this section seems to be:

::*Immediately make it clear that there was an international legal tribunal.
::*What it did or did not find.
::*Then move to a section titled Immorality and State Terrorism, (or some better title).

::This is an important allegation. It should be addressed. The article should offer the lagal and moral context, offer links and cites to the articles where this gets detailed attention, and be short. WP does not need multiple articles on this, but it clearly relates. I endorse Giovanni33's proposal. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure if you understand my proposal as it differs from what your talking about--unless what you are proposing is supported by sources that talk in such terms (morality, legal tribunal, etc concerning US state terrorism?). Do you have them? Also, I'd like to see the sources you have about the "international legal tribunal," and what it says on the subject. I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm. Also, there is this international peoples legal tribunal that was held on the atomic bombings that found the US guilty of a war crime in its use: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1155010108.shtml (although this tribunal was without real authority). However the ICC ruling is with full legal authority. The World Court ruled with a formal opinion on the legality of use of nuclear weapons, which to my knowledge was the first time (this is not just UN resolutions such as [http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#H] either. The United Nations GA asked the Court for an advisory legal opinion, and they delivered one, settling many questions of law, after taking two years to look at the question. Thus we have the world's pre-eminent judicial authority that considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it came to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal--although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws." Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. By this standard they were illegal then, as they are illegal now. Now I mention this not because I think the questions of legality are appropriate for this article. The concept of State Terrorism is a different issue not one constrained by legal questions or by War Crimes. They are related but not the same thing. I'd like to stick to the subject of this article and not stray off topic. That is why I proposed that we use the sources we find on the subject to guide us for content on the article, and persuade me that its appropriate. Think about our job is simply finding sources and reporting them here, in a cogent manner.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BernardL posted elsewhere: ''"For example, you keep mentioning there was a verdict from an international legal tribunal, "that rendered a verdict on this topic" of the atomic bombings of Japan. Can you please give me a source for this claim? I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm."''.

I have no problem with discussing the [[International Court of Justice]] issuing an advisory and non-binding opinion on this subject as long as we are honest enough to explain that the decision is advisory and non-binding. In fact, I think the finding is an important ''fact''. The purpose of the ICJ is to assist the UN [[Security Council]] with such legal matters. This opinion advised the UNSC on this issue, so the discussion needs to cover the decision of the UNSC on this recomendation. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Cuban issues and SYN polcy violations ==

:*The covert 1848 and 1851 US invasions of Cuba are possible examples of State terrorism by the United States.
:*The new text offers the Reader a necessary context: The begining of a chain of events that led to the Cold War issues that are raised in the section. Still missing is the fact that Cuba articulated a well known threat to deploy and use weapons of mass destruction against the US. The article does not offer the context that the US was then under a real threat of nuclear destruction.
:*One of my primary prior criticisms is that the Cuban material lacks ''even one reliable source'' connecting the US to Cuba following the Bay of Pigs. I now have done the research to resolve this, have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees. By deleting this reference, you reverted the ''entire Cuban section'' back a synthesis policy violation again. We had sources that there was terrorism by Cuban refugees. None of these sources are relevant to THIS article without a reliable source linking them to the US. Now we have this source - but you deleted it. Why? Use the TALK page before reverting to build consensus FIRST, please. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Point by point: 1), Technically that's possible, but we would need a source that says that, otherwise it's irrelevant. Of course the US did not actually "invade" Cuba in 1848, though many slaveholders did want to acquire it via means fair or foul. 2) We cannot give an entire history here, merely context which is pertinent to any state terrorism allegations. If part of the justification for "state terrorism" against Cuba by the US was that Cuba posed a nuclear threat (although this was only during a brief period) then I think we could include that so long as it was sourced. I don't know what specifically you have in mind. 3) I don't know what source you are referring to and perhaps you have already added it back in (if so please put a link to the diff of your edit here if possible). I already explained to you on your talk page why all of your edits were reverted and acknowledged that some good stuff may have been reverted as well. If you would have discussed here first and used edit summaries this probably would not have happened, but when you make a boatload of new changes (largely adding irrelevant material, at least in my opinion) to a controversial article without discussing first, your edits will often get reverted in full. You seem to be making more limited edits in your last few changes (and usually using edit summaries) which is good. Others can review those, but controversial stuff (be they deletions, additions, or significant changes) should still be discussed on talk first. This goes for all parties obviously.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:1), ''Technically that's possible, but we would need a source that says that, otherwise it's irrelevant. Of course the US did not actually "invade" Cuba in 1848, though many slaveholders did want to acquire it via means fair or foul.'' The US then used a covert force, we have a good source for this. It has striking parallels to the Bay of Pigs. Perhaps it could be shortened?

:2) ... ''If part of the justification for "state terrorism" against Cuba by the US was that Cuba posed a nuclear threat (although this was only during a brief period) then I think we could include that so long as it was sourced. I don't know what specifically you have in mind.'' The ''entire'' justification for the Cuban invasion is about the [[Cold War]], and these acts were intended as acts of war, a covert war - (which was typical of the Cold War). How may these events be understood outside of the Cold War context? It was another era, and understanding that era is important to understanding the covert CIA war. Cuba (and Berlin) were the central battlegrounds of the Cold War. We are discussing the Cold War exclusively in regard to Cuba.

:3) ''I don't know what source you are referring to and perhaps you have already added it back in (if so please put a link to the diff of your edit here if possible).'' I'm not sure what source we are discussing? I've tried to make diffs, but cannot find "radio buttons".

:4. The Cuban Media is not only state-owned, Cuba has frequently declared that there is no freedom of the press. It therefore cannot be compared to the BBC or the Canadian Brodcasting Corporation. It is a primary source and subject to primary source reporting? Cuba is/was a party to an 18 billion dollar suit against the US. Granma and Radio Havana are also plantiffs in that lawsuit because they ARE the government of Cuba. Cuba has no journalists. When Cuba (as a plantiff) makes "extraordinary claims" that meet policy requirements to be deemed not reliable, may we also agree to this? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::1) What part of the US government ordered a covert force into Cuba in 1848? I don't think the article deals with the Bay of Pigs invasion as state terrorism, so why is any of this relevant? 2) I still don't know what you are talking about specifically--could you please reference the addition you have/want to made. Your original point was about the thread of nukes from Cuba, which was very brief. I don't know what you are talking about now. 3) Raggz, this keeps happening. You bring something up, someone asks you to explain further, and then you "I don't know what we are discussing." How can one reply to this? In your first comment in this thread you said you "have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees." I'm asking you what this source is. 4) There is very little freedom of the press in Cuba, true, but Granma is in general a valid source by Wikipedia rules for reasons that have been articulated very fully above. I don't agree with your points.

::I thought you had only made minor changes to the article but realized you added everything (or most everything) back in which you had added before. I'll leave it for someone else (for now) to see what they think should stay and what should go since you still did not have any discussion on talk before re-adding this material.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::(edit conflict with BTP)--Raggz, you have not shown there to be a SYN violation, yet. I have to see this. Also, you added in (and took out), lots of information, and the main problem is that all this was done without getting any consensus for making these major changes on the talk page first. Lastly, I disagree with adding in all the background/historical information about Cuba. It belongs on another article, and this article should not get too off the subject when dealing with claims of US state terror against Cuba--unless there is a good source that connects those historical facts to US state terrorism against Cuba. But the source should mention the cause and effect. I only see you talking about the history of Cuba--giving each historical point its own section even. Lets get consensus for these major changes first before you put them in the article. So, I'll have to revert you back to BigtimePeace. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::There is not one reliable source (except the ineligible source from the media owned by the Cuban Government) for any state terrorism against Cuba. Please identify a reliable source. I might have missed it. There are many sources that claim many things but none for state terrorism. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I am quite interested in consensus. Everything added or subtracted may be debated. Giovanni33 did not adres the questions I asked (above) about the [[Cold War]] context. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Yes, you are correct there is not just one reliable source, there are many reliable source which have already been given to you and outlined by other editors numerous times.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Are you possibly being serious? I gave you reliable sources from two peer reviewed journals- one from Jorge I. Dominguez, professor at Harvard. Also, from some time ago (which you apparently ignored), from the head of the National Lawyers Guild, Leonard Weinglass. There are many indeed. It is really unfathomable at this stage that you can possibly pretend to claim there is not one reliable source alleging state terrorism by the US against Cuba. And regarding your point number four, several reliable scholars have used Granma as a source for their positive claims; and if reliable scholars use Granma as a source why should not us mere editors use it too? (I will provide examples of scholars using granma in the next 2 days). [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes BernardL, I am serious. My efforts are done in good faith. Might I be mistaken? Yes that is always possible. I believe that I have read every citation. The only citations that allege state terrorism are for US immigration/extradition policy, for not extraditing Cuban refugees who apparently are terrorists and many worked for the covert CIA war against Cuba. Everyone presumes that CANF has a US connection, but there are no reliable sources. I find nothing by Jorge I. Dominguez. Nothing by Leonard Weinglass. Where do I look besides the article?

:::You might read [[WP:REDFLAG]]. I am no expert on policy. When a source is challenged (which admittedly is done subjectively), need there then be a "mainstream media" echo? If the "mainstream media" does not echo what Granma says, it does NOT go into WP. Find an echo, no problem, it qualifies and we use it. Simple enough? If not, complain to Jimbo Wales. [[User:Jimbo Wales]]. This WP policy does not apply to journals where original research is not banned, but is encouraged. The Cuban media readily admits to not having any degree of press freedom and are direct voices of that government. I believe that they qualify as a "primary source", as would the US State Department. There are WP rules for primary sources, but I forget what they are. Granma is a reliable ''primary source'', no need to prove this. It however does not employ journalists, Castro has said this and also said that it has no freedom of the press whatever. Resolve the issue, refute the challenge, you only need find a "mainstream media" echo. Do it the easy way. Find a reliable "mainstream media" echo for state terrorism.

:::Perhaps reliable scholars are not always held to WP policy, might that be an answer to your question? This answer is off topic anyway, the ''real'' question is the [[WP:REDFLAG]] policy. We don't need to approve it, nor debate it. We just need to follow it. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You are (again, and again, and again) misapplying your favorite [[WP:REDFLAG|redflag]] policy. I've explained the policy (as I read it) many times (literally, I think, five or six) and you have never engaged with those explanations, instead choosing to wave WP:REDFLAG in front of us like some kind of, well, redflag! Unsurprisingly you are using it incorrectly again. You claim to be "no expert on policy" yet you constantly invoke policy (particularly "redflag") while ignoring other editors who tell you that you are misapplying policy. This is a not good way to achieve the consensus that you say is so important to you. And if you do not remember our previous discussions on the redflag policy, please look back at some of the previous threads (all of which, I think, you started). Note that I am commenting right here ''only'' on your continued invocation of WP:REDFLAG (and not the particulars of the Cuba section, in part cause I already said some stuff about that) because I think it is unbelievably problematic. Unfortunately you continually refuse to discuss it.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I pay close attention to your views of policy, and regret that you have had to repeat yourself. I have some memory loss due to combat-relatd traumatic brain injuries, and as a result, I no longer work. Perhaps this is why this happened? I do not recall anything of substance as your reply, except that I recall that you cited a larger policy, and by that policy claimed to have invalidated my application of [[WP:REDFLAG]]. I didn't really understand your logic, and so never accepted it. My key and still unanswered question is why not just use a "mainstream echo" which would deny this challenge? Without a simple answer, I may not understand your theory. I am open to persuasion, but may have missed why (1) I may not challenge an "extraorinary claim) and (2) why it is not necessary to offer a "mainstream echo" when an "extraordinary claim" is challenged? I am trying to understand. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate that you have read my views on Wiki policy closely (not that they are so important!) and have done the same for you I assure you. You have several times now mentioned the fact that you have sustained some brain injuries and that there may have been some associated memory loss, and this is something I have thought about repeatedly since first interacting with you. Personally I cannot imagine experiencing something like that, and I marvel at your ability to go through that kind of trauma ''and'' come through it to the point that you are willing and able to devote your time here to the encyclopedia, of all things. Perhaps--and this is something I have been (and am still) extremely hesitant to mention--the memory issues are part of the problem with our communication troubles and indeed maybe with much of the resistance you are experience on this talk page. If you are willing, send me an e-mail--the "e-mail this user" option is enabled on the left side of my user page--so we can talk further. I think it could be fruitful.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::To Raggz: since you have mentioned your troubles with memory loss several times as a potential reason that you are unable to follow some of the many many many discussion threads that you are involved in on this and many many many other controversial pages, may I suggest that you start limiting your participation to more managable chunks of content, sticking to one article and limiting the number of discussion threads that you start and participate in for that article. I dont think that even a person who does not suffer from memory loss could maintian reasonable content and context for as many different 'soups' that you are currently making. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

: While the current Cuba section contains as sources Fidel Castro (BBC),RICARDO Alarcón (Granma), National Security Archives, Roberto Hernández Caballero (Miami Herald), a Cuban Statement to the U.N., Noam Chomsky, The Washington Post and Peter Kornbluh, I would like to present a sandbox that corroborates the charge, at least in its general form. It is a succession of quotes from about 18 scholars dealing with issues running the gamut, including general allegations of state terrorism, Operation Mongoose, Posada Carrilles, Orlanda Bosch, CANF, and numerous connections with the CIA and government officials, (as well as Jeb Bush). This material is not exhaustive, much more could be added. It is simply the product of an afternoon's work. Here is the link to the sandbox..... ... [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BernardL/Sandbox4]] [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


===Is discussion moving us toward consensus for the content of this article? If not, why not?===
I appreciate your patience. One does not percieve TBI cognitive holes, but runs into them often without noticing. For example: the first time I entered the women's rest room I was annoyed that there was a woman in the men's room. After I bump into a pattern like that I learn to pay close attention to restroom signs, something that required no attention prior. I do not percieve any TBI issues for WP, but such are possible. Although I cannot go back to being a professor, I still enjoy using my mind actively. WP interests me, and I have some time. Don't be shy about discussing the TBI, it is like my eye color, nothing all that personal. There are a great many other new WP editors of like circumstance, WP is a great means for TBI rehabilitation.

It is my highest priority to reach consensus on policy, because my editorial style is to adhere to [[WP:BOLD]] [[WP:OWN]], and [[WP:IAR]]. You need to be clear if we disagree on policy because I wlll at times edit quite boldly, unless I percieve a policy that limits this. This and the core policies that resonate for me are why I spend time here. [[WP:CON]] constrains boldness, as do other policies, but in the end, [[WP:IAR]]. You appear to be the "primary editor" for WP policy purposes. There presently is no consensus for prior discussion for ''every'' edit on TALK. Consensus has shifted per [[WP:CON]]. That said, consensus building requires the development of trust and respect, these require time to develop. Discussion is good, but to this point little or no progress is being made toward consensus despite ''much'' discussion. Consensus however is ''not'' a requirement for the challenge of text that does not comply with WP policy. Although I expect to challenge some content, I do not expect to challenge editors, and I expect to build the trust and communication that is necessary for the collegial development of [[WP:CON]]. Is our discussion moving us toward consensus for the content of this article? If not, why not?

*Apart from the government of Cuba, is there a reliable source for anything in the Cuba material being state terrorism, or is the ''entire section'' a SYN policy violation?

*I am disatisfied with ALL of the Cuban material and suggest stepping back and taking the broad view. Does it ALL belong in the [[Cold War]] article? If not, the Cold War context is critical to this article, presently it offers an entirely invalid thesis that the US arbitrarily decided to invade Cuba without any compelling cause. If there is no consensus for removal, ''then'' in my view there needs to be a major Cold War inclusion for context. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to inclusion of Castro's actual invasions of the Dominecan Republic and Hati? What about his plan to invade the US (Puerto Rico) and overthrow the US government and annex US teritory to Cuba? These, and the Soviet threat to use Cuba to launch a full scale thermonuclear attack on the US were properly concerns of the US in the era being discussed. Operation Northwoods was a classic Cold War planning exercise, and we need the Cold War context for this material. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, I object because it's off topic--unless you have a source that states that the US actions that are accused of state terrorism against Cuba, was in response to any of these actions you accuse Cuba of. If the source says that, and its reliable, then we can include it. Maybe in the "Opposition/Response" section, which is the official US response? But lets look at the sources and what they say first.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::Agreed. There are many excellent sources about Cuba and the [[Cold War]]. A "Opposition/Response" section implies two factions debating, and I am not in favor of having two factions of editors. I propose to follow [[WP:CON]]. I favor adding the Cold War context necessary to expand the context.

::Look at [[Boston Tea Party]]'s Background Section. Without this, would the Reader understand? This was arguablly terrorism, (there probably is a source). If we only tell the reader "''The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks on ships in Boston Harbor",'' this totally lacks context.

::Our article ''totally ignores'' the Cold War context and states: ''"Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba on many occasions.[19][20][21] According to Ricardo Alarcón, President of Cuba’s national assembly "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century.”[22]"''

::*Is it relevant that Americans were digging bomb shelters in their backyards because of Cuba, that Cuba had invaded her neighbors three times the year prior and publically threatened to invade the US (Puerto Rico)?

::*Is it contextually important to explain why half a million Cubans fled Cuba, why they were invading Cuba with or without US help? The answer is that the Revolution was nearly universally supported, but when it turned Stalinist, when those who had fought for the Revolution were jailed and executed, when all human rights were suspended, they fled, and were very angry. The article implies that they were working for the US when they were actually Cuban nationals who had lived in Cuba that year, and were attacking from the US. Does the Reader deserve this context, like the BACKGROUND in [[Boston Tea Party]] offers context? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The reason this article does not go into the motivations for why the U.S. acted as it did is because it is entirely irrelevant to the category of law we are dealing with; to adapt your favorite example -- the O.J. Simpson case -- your insistence upon including historical context to these claims would be as if O.J. admitted to the crime and then tried to bring forward a history of his relationship with Nicole to persuade the Judge that he should be let go. Except that's not the way the law works; O.J. was being tried for murder. If he admits to that murder then that's the end of the story; he did it, now he's sentenced. Providing background about '''why''' the U.S. has paid people to blow up airliners over the Carribbean, or poison the Cuban water supply, or given protection and organizational recognition to organizations that admit to the routine use of terrorism is beside the point. If the U.S. gave aid, support, or protection to a group of people who admit to blowing up an airliner full of innocent people then the U.S. is, according to its own standards, guilty of State Terror. End of story.

:::Once again: i am sympathetic to your protestations. But i will remind you, once again, that this article is at an impasse first and foremost because there are many people who would like to see it deleted and who are unwilling to contribute any information to the page subject. If you are interested in balancing out the article then i urge you to create a sandbox and show us what your ideas are. Both i and Bigtimepeace have indicated on several occasions that we are open to a massive re-working of the page content. Unfortunately, your only response has been to chalenge sources that have already been examined, and re-examined, repeatedly passing the challenges. Why don't you just make that sandbox and start showing us what your ideas are? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 12:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sean O'Brien ==

Sean O'Brien's research supports the theory that state terrorism is more characteristic for authoritarian regiems and less characteristic for the US. Does anyone suggest that using his study of Cuba vs US issues would be a problem?

Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages. Sean P. O'Brien. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 320-335. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:In the context of the Cuba section this makes no sense, but I checked out the article itself and it's obviously fine as a source in general, and probably applies well to this article. Per the article abstract, the author's (somebody at [[UW-Milwaukee]] circa 1996) overall argument is that "the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes are more likely than the U.S. and other democracies to resort to international terrorism as a foreign policy tool." The data is from [[Time-series analysis]] (certainly not my [[bailiwick]]) so I don't know what went into the research and probably would not understand it if I did. The argument advanced is legitimate and relevant but it belongs in an early section of the article, which is worth discussing. Thanks to Raggz for what seems like a useful source! But please quit making new sections! The discussion here is beyond unmanageable and a number of folks are frustrated with your editing style on this page.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 07:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::This is a variant of Democratic Peace Theory, and I think it would be more suitable for the main State Terrorism article, or the article on Democratic Peace Theory, or related articles than this one. But since it specifically mentions state terrorism it may find some mention in this article, although I'm not sure. I think part of this line of thought is already in the "Opposition Section" if I'm not mistaken. The problem with it in this article, is that its a little off subject. Bigtimepeace summarized the theory correctly, but I don't see how allegations of specific actions committed by the US is logically answered by pointing to the increased likely-hood, per this theory, that another state does it more, etc. Its a type of logical fallacy. I suppose that an argument can be made that its (state terror) an inherent aspect of all States, but that there is a correlation between domestic civil conditions, and foreign policy--although I think the argument is flawed, and opposing arguments should be presented. However, this just goes to show this is not the article for presenting these issues, and they are discussed on other articles dealing with the debates.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


===jtrainer didn't get edit passed===

Didn't you all agree that the editing you all do should go on this page first? I reverted him because he didn't do it so I thought it was against wikipedia rules. Also his excuse was the part he didn't like was wrong but it was a good quote and it was important so I thought it should stay. It also says terrorism in it and thats important for the article. Does anyone agree or not? [[Special:Contributions/218.160.177.247|218.160.177.247]] ([[User talk:218.160.177.247|talk]]) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:I normally do not discuss edits with editors who will not log on, but I will make an exception to say that your text above is unclear. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::While it is not ''required'' - on contentious articles such as this with active interest in editing, it is generally considered good form to work out potentially divisive material on the talk page first, before submitting in the actual article. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't need to post everything I do with an article on the talk page, and in this instance, I did. I'm undoing your revert of me. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 19:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I shall further note that that is that IP's first edit. Whoever it is should log in. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't understand the basis for your edit, which blanks a valid and accurate source with information that is very relevant to the topic and section. Please explain this. Raggz comment about legality and not morality makes no sense. No where in removed text does it talk about legality or morality. Its simply the view of one historian who commented on the charges that that bombing was an instance of State Terror. Given that the historian is the section needs balance, his thoughts could use some elaboration and expansion, not deletion. Please explain. Also I agree that its very bad form to make contested edits on this article without explaining and obtaining consensus on the talk page first. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Before I invest the time to really get a large WWII and state terrorism section developed to deal with the lack of context and NPOV issues that Japan raises, do we ''really'' want to debate an action that was fully legal only because of moral concerns that we will never resolve? There already is an article on this. If the international community has a legal tribunal and determines legality, can it still be called state terrorism? Every article needs to define limits, where should these be here? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Again, this has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with serious allegations of particular acts of State Terrorism by the US from reliable sources. If you have additional sources about that, please present that so we can look at the material and talk about its inclusion. You didn't explain my question about the deletion of sourced material, above.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::"do we ''really'' want to debate" - we, as editors of wikipedia, should not be debating whether "the action was legal or not". Such debate would generally be Original Research and not permitted in Wikipedia. What we should be debating is whether or not the statements within the article are [[WP:V]] verifiable (ie do we have a source that says this) and whether or not those statements are being presented in [[WP:NPOV]] a neutral point of view. (The statements themselves do NOT need to be NPOV if it they are verifiable and properly attributed to their source.) If we can re-focus the discussion on this page to be asking and answering those questions, we may be able to move forward on reaching concensus on the article. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with you and have made this very point myself. Legality, war crimes, morality, etc. are all different issues that this article is not about, per se, even though it is related. If there is to be a connection established connecting these areas to claims of State Terrorism, then we need to verify that from a reliable source that makes that connection in subject matters. We editors do not do that ourselves as that would be OR.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
'''comment to jraianor and raggz''' there is no requirement to start an account to edit or converse in wikipedia. creating an account can help to keep conversations and discussions straight, but as this talk page has proved, it in no way ensures that conversations are not convoluted or misunderstood. Annonymous editor, you are invited to create an account, but it is your choice. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

'''addendum to anonymous editor''' while anonymous eiditing is allowed, it is even more important for anonymous editors to follow [[WP:CIVIL]]. Your edit comment in your reversion of Jtrainor's comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&diff=186636764&oldid=186597070], is bordering on uncivil and is unnecessarily confrontational. Please limit edit comments to explaining 'what' happened in the edit and not add additional sarcastic commentary.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:I just addresed the question of morality above. Now I will here. I'm persuadable to expand the scope of the article into '''Moral Authority'''. The initial issue is the lack of any reliable source to support a claim that legal acts are ever state terrorism by any form of moral authorities. This would open a fascinating new section on Islam and moral authority. Do we want to grow in this direction? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Red Pen is correct. I apologize to our new participant for not properly greeting you. Are you a new user? Welcome. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Will the next person to revert the Hiroshima text using moral authority for support please first edit moral authority into the definitions section first, please? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Now you are fetishizing law again. What you seem to be suggesting is that rule of law, and in this case international law, closes the case on legitimate scholarly and public discussion. Well, legal apparatuses and decisions are imperfect because they are the product of human conduct that is itself embedded in social power relations. Historically, laws and legal decisions have often been flawed and discriminatory, and real human progress in law has often come about as the result of social struggle in opposition to those invoking the authority of law. Independent scholars too, reserve the right to question the authority of the law including international law. Here is an interesting quote from the book "War and State Terrorism" by Mark Selden (Yale) and Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong) which might help you understand that there is no closure of debate and legitimate questioning just because an international tribunal has made a ruling...
:::"Herein lies the central problem of the international law regime. With a few notable exceptions, such as early restraints on airpower and on chemical and biological weapons, powerful nations have scarcely been restrained by legal norms from deploying new technologies in the service of national power. The international system has yet to seriously address, let alone overcome, problems associated with the impunity of the great powers. The record of the long twentieth century leaves little reason for optimism that an international legal order that is itself the product of agreement among the powers can enforce the laws of war confronted by challenges from great, and particularly hegemonic, powers. Yet the legal order, in contributing to consciousness of state terror, legitimizes efforts to control it. In this sense, it is intimately related to the social movements that have repeatedly challenged its workings." (Selden, Mark and So, Alvin Y. War and State Terrorism, War and Peace Library,16)[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::''What you seem to be suggesting is that rule of law, and in this case international law, closes the case on legitimate scholarly and public discussion.'' No. Obviously not. It does close the legal aspect though. Legal authority needs to follow moral authority. When it does not, it is not justice. Yes, great powers do have impunity, and this impairs social progress. We are in total agreement.

::::We can get into moral authority and state terrorism, which of course leads directly to religion and state terrorism, because religious leaders often bear great moral authority. May an Imam declare a legal state action to be state terrorism? May the Pope declare a nation that has legal abortions to be engaged in state terrorism? Obviosly yes, and in the case of Islam, the UN Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution condeming freedom of speech against Islam. We are indeed entering a new era, where Western notions of what is or is not state terrorism may be. The question here is not if we COULD get involved with MORAL AUTHORITY to determine when a legal state action is actually state terrorism - the question is if we want to? I suspect that we would need to rely on a very few sources, and that we are discussing a book and not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I suggest you let the available sources on the issue (claims of state terrorism committed by the US) guide content and discussion, since we are delimited by those proper constraints for building this encyclopedic article. Otherwise, this talk page turns into an open-ended discussion not serving its intended purpose. As I've stated several times, simply provide a reliable source and quotes its content, and then suggest how to add its information to the article. If there is some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others on the basis of a moral or particular religious basis--and calls it State Terrorism---then it may be suitable to mention that. This is of course provided its a reliable source, and we review what the source says, and have consensus about how to represent it in the article.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I answered you above. Concerning ''"... some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others..."'' we also need to address claims of '''''legal non-violent state terrorism''''', such as those made by Cuba, that the denial by a US Federal Court of an extradition request by Venezuala was an act of terrorism.

::::::From [[Christian terrorism]]: ''"such as the Lord's Resistance Army, consist of thousands of armed insurgents aiming to bring about a Christian state through violent revolution."'' There is also Islamic state terrorism.

::::::Why do I raise this? To suggest that what we put into our DEFINITIONS section defines what we should add to the article. If we are not going to discuss abortion as state terrorism, we can set this limit within DEFINITIONS. If we don't want to deal with immigration/extradition policy as state terrorism, this should go into definitions - with links. I'm not arguing for or against topic inclusion here. I'm proposing that we agree to use DEFINITIONS as a guide to what should or should not be used.
:::::::I'm afraid I disagree with you, here. The reason is that this smacks of Original Research. This appears to be the case because you have yet to provide one source that supports any of your claims, i.e. Cuba saying that US immigration policy is state terrorism (they never said that, and I still have not seen a single source make that claim)-- or even a source that links the Christian Terrorists with the United States Government. What is the source and what does it say to the point? How is it ''State'' Terrorism? What does Islamic State Terrorism have to do with the US government? Is there any reliable source that talks about these things, or are you just making all this up, i.e. OR? Please, if you are going to make any claims about adding in new content to the article, please, have a source that supports it. Otherwise, its a waste of space to talk about it here. This is not a talk/blog forum.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::While I have agreed to cover Hiroshima (above) I would ''prefer'' to limit the scope to actions '''illegal by international law.''' This would exclude Hiroshima. Hiroshima could be linked to for '''immorality as state terrorism articles'''. If we want to outline legal immorality as state terrorism, fine. This will be a serious challenge, but I'm willing to try. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If you did that then the 9-11 attacks would not qualify as "terrorism" for the simple reason that they are handled under local criminal law, not international law. The 9-11 attacks do not qualify under 'international law' for the simple reason that they were undertaken by individuals acting as criminals and not a state acting against another state. So to hold this page to that same standard is obviously disingenuous. Moreover, "terrorism" itself is not an idea that is limited to International law. The idea is much larger than that, and in fact its usage predates any attempts by the United States to impose a legal definition. The idea goes back to "terror tactics", which is an idea and phrase that goes back at least to the late part of the 18th century. So really, what you '''personally''' are suggesting in this instance flies in the face of all established usage, scholarship and understanding. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::I think that we should consider a 9-11 section where we outline the allegations that the US Government bombed the World Trade Center. We could recruit editors with expertise in this. IF there had been a legal decision that had answered the question, I would say NO, it is settled, no laws were broken. There has been no court decision that ''"they were undertaken by individuals acting as criminals and not a state acting against another state",'' so YES, we should add this. Once again we are thinking alike. I didn't really understand your whole concept, but if you could restate it, I will try again. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::''"you have yet to provide one source that supports any of your claims, i.e. Cuba saying that US immigration policy is state terrorism (they never said that..."'' Fair enough. Citations 19&20.
:::::::::^*Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
:::::::::^*Rodríguez, Javier. The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón. Granma. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

:::::::::Read these carefully. The allege that US extradition/immigration policy is state terrorism. People they believe to be terrorist (who ''probably'' are) are permitted to reside in the US (immigration policy). Posada (who almost certainly is a retired terrorist) was not extradited by a federal judge concerned about the risk of torture. This Alarcon calls state terrorism (US federal courts committing state terrorism by denying extradition).

:::::::::Christian terrorists? No, there is no US government link. Worldwide? Many. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I have read these and I do not see the part that makes the accusation. Can you quote the relevant part? What I'm looking for is something that says "US Immigration Policy is State Terrorism," since that is your claim. About the Christian Terrorists, since you say there is no link to the US government then I think that proves its not relevant to this article, yes?[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

===Confusion===

[[User:Raggz|Raggz]] editing style is too confusing and requires considerable work by other editors to keep up with. May i suggest editing and discussing ONE section at a time. Then after [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] is happy with it, only then starting a new section. This would speed the process up and avoid wasting so much time better spent on other articles. [[User:WLRoss|Wayne]] ([[User talk:WLRoss|talk]]) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:There seems to be an emerging consensus to keep it simpler. Agreed. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

===I would simply like to say...===

...that i don't edit anonymously. Those IP's aren't me. I just did a whois on them and they all go back to the largest ISP in Taiwan. If i'm not mistaken, then that particular ISP serves well over 10 million people. I would not be suprised if a few of them take an interest in Wikipedia; if i'm not mistaken, one of the citations i provided above is from an english teacher who lives in the same city i do.

At any rate, i think that, for someone who knew how, finding some way to spoof an IP address is probably quite simple. But whoever it is, that person is not me.[[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

===Sandbox Issues===

:*''San Juan, Jr., E. (2006-09-18). Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization. Monthly Review Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.'' Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*''San Juan, Jr., E. (2007-04-28). Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity. Asian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.'' Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Simbulan, Roland G. (2005-05-18). The Real Threat. Seminar. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. ''"Distinctions will be drawn between individual terrorism (the September 11 attacks); International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians); State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel); and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)."'' :

:This citation will be deleted soon, even without consensus, because it denies policy and for this reason consensus is not required. Reverting will result in some form of Dispute Resolution, to determine if this citation requires deletion by policy. The policy challenge is [[WP:REDFLAG]]. All that you need to do to prevent deletion is to provide a "mainstream media" confirmation of the claimed state terrorism for (1) The bombing of Afghanistan as an act of state terrorism and (2) US assistance to Israel (which resulted in a Nobel Prize). These are "extraordinary claims", and this citation does not meet policy requirement as a reliable source. As I said, all that is necessary to deny this claim is to offer a "mainstream media" echo. Please do this. If you need time, just ask. Otherwise this citation will require deletion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::The first E. San Juan piece does seem to talk about US state terrorism (as part and parcel of Philippine state terror) the second and third ones may not but I did not look closely.
:::Second one literally uses the phrase; third uses it in the preface and conclusion without direct attribution. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::Reiterating your argument against the Cohn article for the fifth time (in a random section) will not get you very far. We already have a [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Marjorie_Cohn.27s_2002_Arab_Studies_Quarterly_Article|whole section about this above]], remember? I repeatedly challenged your incorrect usage of [[WP:REDFLAG]] there and you never responded but now are invoking it again. The article is from a scholar in a scholarly journal and does not need a "mainstream media echo." There is nothing in the "redflag" policy about a "mainstream media echo" (you are literally making that up out of thin air and we all know that--so I suggest you stop invoking it) and that sub-policy (redflag) does not apply to this source and cannot be used in the way you insist on trying to use it. You have no consensus to delete this, and you do not even understand the policy you are invoking. Your stated intention to ignore consensus and editors who tell you that you are misinterpreting policy is disturbing. Your continual and repeated invocation of [[WP:REDFLAG]] while ignoring the fact that people keep telling you that you don't understand the policy needs to stop. Personally I've absolutely had it--I've spent hours (literally hours) trying to discuss this policy with you. You obviously either will not or cannot listen, and until you do we will get nowhere.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 10:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Also Raggz, please don't threaten other editors with dispute resolution if they revert one of your edits. That could not be less helpful. Even if you don't view "if you revert me we'll go to dispute resolution" as a threat, believe me when I say that that's how it comes off.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::My view is that we have discussed if [[WP:REDFLAG]], and we still disagree.

::::''WP:REDFLAG ''
::::''See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; ... surprising or apparently important reports of historical events '''not covered by mainstream news media''' or historiography.''

::::*The claims that Cohn are making are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known".
::::*US aid to Israel is a historical event.
::::*The invasion of Afghanistan is one as well.
::::*Is her claim '''not covered by mainstream news media'''? If it is, why not save us all a lot of time and explain this at this point?

::::We now need go through the dispute resolution process? I do not feel that we agree on policy, nor do we seem to be making progress. You seem to have strong feelings on this. Should we discuss this further? I'm fine with more discussion, but are we likely to make any progress? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::''"Reiterating your argument against the Cohn article for the fifth time (in a random section) will not get you very far. We already have a [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Marjorie_Cohn.27s_2002_Arab_Studies_Quarterly_Article|whole section about this above]], remember?"''. Of course. People have asked not to use so many sections, so I am respecting this by now using the bottom of the page. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
::First of all, people have asked you not to ''create'' so many new sections. In re-starting this thread down here you are essentially creating a new section, which is precisely what people do not want you to do. You abandoned the other discussion on Cohn awhile ago and so now we are starting over from zero. It's incredibly frustrating to edit this way. However, I'll reiterate my argument on the REDFLAG policy yet again and hope you respond directly this time. Here I am quoting myself in the section on Cohn above in yet another attempt to make you respond directly to my argument:
:::"If you re-read that section of WP:V you'll notice that i[t] says "certain red flags should ''prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim''" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used."
::Can you please respond to this directly? Specifically, can you respond to my assertion that the REDFLAG policy does ''not'' provide a criteria for removing a source, rather it merely offers examples of the kind of sources that might be problematic? Also, can you acknowledge that the policy does not say "surprising claims must be echoed in the mainstream media?" Read it again please Raggz--the policy simply does not say this. Please, please engage directly with those points--don't go off on a tangent.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:* Robert D. Kaplan. "Supremacy by Stealth", The Atlantic Monthly, The Atlantic Monthly Group, July/August 2003. The word terrorism does not appear in this article.

:*Falk, Richard (2004-01-28). Gandhi, Nonviolence and the Struggle Against War. The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 2007-02-02. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Cuban Terror Case Erodes US Credibility, Critics Say", Inter Press Service, 2005-09-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders. BBC (2005-12-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Terrorism organized and directed by the CIA. Granma. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. This does not mention the US and state terrorism, so needs to go. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Raggz, if you are indeed arguing what i think you are arguing, you are entirely mistaken in your belief that each source referenced within this article MUST have the word 'terrorisim' within the source in order for that source to be referenced within this article. Please do not even attempt to use that as the basis for any of your work here, because it is not a legitimate point. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
: I will second the sensible points made by RedPenOfDoom. Raggz has no grounds to go on a deleting spree just because a particular source does not mention US and state terrorism.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these claims have been responded to above. In each case, legitimate, mainstream dismissals of your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines were given. In each case, you dropped the argument without offering counter-arguments or defense, instead shifting your indignation to a new target. Then the pattern was repeated.

All of these sources you mention have been carefully vetted and determined, after quite a few hours of wranglingg, to be legitimate in the context of their usage and presentation. Their inclusion here is the result of demands made by people who have opposed this article and insisted upon documented evidence of the assertions and claims made by the sources herein. While it would be very nice if we could restructure the article and make it more in keeping with scholarly rhetoric, the unfortunate truth is that simply deleting these sources will only result in weakening the content and assisting those people who would like to see this page deleted.

My suggestion is, once again, that you prepare a sandbox and work on some material so that we can see what direction you would like to take the page. When we have some of your own material to work with then we can begin to discuss where we can go from there. Until that time, however, I am concerned that your motivation to get these sources removed is not to improve the depth and scope of the article but instead only to introduce a particular point of view to it, to try and limit the information presented here about how the U.S. government goes about some things.

I, for one, am open to the idea of introducing material that is more sympathetic to the United States Government's position. Unfortunately, every attempt i have ever made to get that sort of information included has been quickly deleted. If that is your motivation, then i am sure we can work together; i am not, however, going to write it for you.{{unsigned|Stone put to sky}}

: While not overly familiar with [[WP:REDFLAG]] as a policy, I think I can pretty safely say that the intention is not to allow Raggz - or any other editor - to simply delete sourced material, together with the relevant cite, on the basis that they personally have never heard of the argument or assertions being made in that source, or on the basis that they happen to disagree with that argument; or to demand that the argument has to have been repeated in a newspaper article if it is going to be allowed to stay. If that were the case, the most ignorant editors here would of course be entitled to remove virtually the entire content of this encyclopedia, since most of the facts, assertions and arguments recorded here would all be news to them.

:In fact of course this policy simply means that when a genuinely odd claim - for example, say, that "fish are mammals" - appears in an article here, referenced to a seemingly respectable source, that should raise questions about whether the source is in fact as reliable as it seems. Redflag does not apply in this case because a) in fact the claim about state terrorism in the Cohn article is not extraordinary, and b) because we have since established anyway that Cohn is a reliable academic source. --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::Just read the policy. A challenge by REDFLAG is subjective, but must be made in good faith. Once challenged, the defining test is if there is a "mainstream media" echo. Another less important test is if someone claims that there is a conspiracy, that the Truth is not getting out from the mainstream media. It is my opinion that you misunderstand the policy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Raggz, it is my opinion that you misunderstand the policy. Please reply to my comment made in the next section on this very issue so we can get this resolved. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&diff=187399678&oldid=187398888 This edit] is the comment to which I am referring. Please address this issue in the next section. Thanks.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Philippines' Sandbox and Raggz' objections ==

Finally, E. San Juan Jr, Ronald Simbulan, the AHRC and the PPT are all legitimate scholarly sources. While their evidence and claims have not been presented by the U.S. mainstream media, the claims and evidence they give voice to are considered unremarkably commonplace in the Philippines and S.E.Asia. I would suggest that the burden of evidence is not on us to demonstrate that the claims of these people are not mainstream but is in fact upon you to show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Philipino geographic and cultural sphere.

As it is, all of the claims made by these people are -- as the passage shows -- clearly based in a literal interpretation of International legal defitions, while the evidence upon which these claims are based are widely acknowledged by the United States itself, as well as by many formal government commissions created by European nations. With such admissions regarding the evidence, the undisputed academic credentials of the sources, and the use of these sources by newspapers and human rights publications both inside the Philippines as well as out, it seems to me that it is your claims that these sources cannot be used that is truly the extraordinary assertion being made here. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Sky, you can't prove a negative. Although I would suggest there is no particular onus on any party to show any comments are "true" or "false", it should be quite possible for you to demonstrate the use of their research by mainstream groups in the international world.
:For example, is their work picked up by Amnesty International? Also, what are their academic qualifications/positions, etc? [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I did not ask anyone to "prove a negative". I asked someone to prove a positive: explain, precisely, how these sources fail the notability requirement. The notability requirement is a clear standard that is unambiguously defined. In regard to this standard sources either pass or fail; that is utterly antithetical to "proving a negative", which would be to, say, prove that someone is not a flibbertigep. Without knowing what a "fibbertigep" is there is no way to disprove it. In this instance, however, we are quite clear on what a reliable source is.

Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored). Thus Raggz' own definition -- that mention must be made by mainstream U.S. media sources -- is patently inapplicable. That there is a government of the Philippines no one doubts. That there is a nation of millions of Philipinos, no one doubts. But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion.

Now, regarding your suggestion that someone back up the qualifications of these sources, my suggestion is that Raggz can google as well as i can. Roland Simbulan is a 20 year professor and Regent of the University of the Philippines and the author of two books, editor of a publication specializing in "Philippine Sovreignty issues,Philippine-U.S. relations, Philippine foreign policy, defense & security issues and the impact of globalization policies on the Filipino people" and finally author of the book "Struggle for an Independent Philippine Foreign Policy". Thus, he is clearly an academic who is actively engaged in research and publication about the issue in question.

Fr. Shay Cullen has been thrice nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, is founder of the large and well respected PREDA human rights organization, has received numerous human rights awards from foreign governments, has testified before the U.S. Congress, the Philippine Senate, is a syndicated columnist in major Philippine media, as well as having been an active force in helping uncover human rights abuses by local U.S. military bases and the conversion of those installations to civilian use.

Those are two that i have googled. It took me five minutes to find the sources and twenty minutes to respond to your challenge. Now it's your turn. Feel free to debate it here -- i welcome your challenges, but remind you that the onus is not upon me to do all the work myself. This is a social effort, and if you really do object to the material then it should be a small thing for you to present alternative sources or unambiguous evidence that disprove the current sources, to show that their presentation of the facts is somehow inaccurate, inadequate, or irrelevant. If you cannot, then i would suggest that the problem here is not with the presented research but, instead, with your objections. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:Your "fibbertigep" analogy is amusing, but you can know the content of the request and yet still be required to prove a negative.
:You demanded that he/others ''show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Philipino geographic and cultural sphere''. Now you've said that the point is to ''prove a positive: explain, precisely, how these sources fail the notability requirement''. "Proof" is impossible because whether sources pass/fail notability is a point of opinion - there is no independent committee who can say "we decree the following sources is notable/not notable". So I suggest you drop the demands for proof, and phrase it as a request.
:Also in regards to the notability policy, I see no part of it that puts the onus on someone to disprove notability.
:''But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion.'' What about the major European newspapers, independent organisations like Amnesty International, etc? They're all for exposing human rights issues around the world. Unless one is a crackpot who believes in a global conspiracy controlling the media, it's fair to say the matter would be brought up in countries that have a good degree of media freedom by credible publications.
:''Fr. Shay Cullen has ...received numerous human rights awards from foreign governments'' Which ones? His website doesn't go into specifics.
:''i welcome your challenges....'' I'm not here to argue one position or another. I'm merely trying to get you to substantiate some of your points because it helps others understand. Unless you're hoping Raggz will get bored or be banned (neither seems likely at this point), it is good to explain your position clearly and concisely. If one says "you must prove X" and another replies "I have to prove nothing - you need to prove Y" then nothing is resolved, is it? Generally speaking the person that wishes to assert a point/support a piece of text has to back it up, show how it complies with the appropriate rules and guidelines, etc.
:''If you cannot, then i would suggest that the problem here is not with the presented research but, instead, with your objections.'' I think you could do with assuming good faith a bit more, rather than assuming anyone who raises a point that could be taken as criticism is opposed to your position. Dividing the community into "with me" or "against me" isn't helpful. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm sorry if it seems as if i'm assuming that; perhaps i was a bit brusque, but i held no presumption about your motives. I just feel a bit put upon by the mass of objections being tabled here by Raggz. I don't mind helping out to defend these sources, but you might be surprised to find that the answers to all of these questions were already supplied on this page back about eight months ago. They were ignored, at that time, and since it was i who posted them -- only to see them ignored -- i feel a bit reluctant to spend time searching them down at the behest of someone who cannot be bothered to contribute any material to the page. I'm not trying to spark anyone's anger here -- certainly not yours -- but the discussion of whether or not these sources are reliable really should be well beyond the "Who are these people?" stage. When working up this material i picked over the quite numerous mentions of the current Philippine-US situation to focus on a few respected academics and human rights workers. The information being asked for isn't still fresh on my mind, and having already presented it once i just don't really understand why the onus is upon me, alone, to do so again.

::::(Having just said that, i'd like to thank the others here for chipping in -- it's a big reassurance) [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::At any rate, i've included statistics and comments taken from fact-finding missions undertaken by the Belgian and Dutch ''governments'', Amnesty International, AHRC and several other public human rights groups. Those should pass reliability tests as well as anything, no? So really, the issue we are most concerned with at the moment is whether or not Prof's R. Simbulan and E. San Juan, Fr. Cullen, the PPT-P, and the labor organizations quoted herein qualify as reliable or not. Prof. E. San Juan and the PPTP i dealt with above. Fr. Cullen and R. Simbulan i just provided for -- to my mind adequately -- but since some here are still in doubt i will direct them to this page: [[PREDA_Foundation]]. It clearly links to two awards by European governments -- Germany and Switzerland -- documenting that Fr. Cullen and his organization work closely with both International Legal Tribunals INTERPOL and the U.N, and also that Fr. Cullen has, in recognition of his work, been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by international organizations who have no direct contact with his group or his work.
::I hope that is enough, but if it is not then of course, please give voice to your reservations. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::Let's keep the discussion focused on the sources. Stone has provided specific evidence and arguments for why a couple of people being used as sources are reliable for our purposes in response to a challenge offered by Raggz. Others are welcome to disagree and I'm not even taking a position at this point. However those who disagree would need to provide a specific rationale for why these sources are unacceptable, just as Stone has offered a rationale for why two particular sources are acceptable. The burden of proof for adding a new source is with the adder, but Stone (who may or may not have added the sources in the first place) has now offered specific arguments for keeping a couple of sources and anyone objecting should offer specific arguments in reply. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

::Let me also note (and this amounts to another way of discussing Raggz's misuse, as I see it, of [[WP:REDFLAG]]) that the title of this article is indeed "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States." As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media). In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on [[The Guardian]] web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::: It also seems to be <i>possibly</i> verging on discrimination to hold up <i>Western</i> mainstream institutions as setting the authoritative standard which the rest (ie: majority) of the world must somehow measure up, or be rejected. The Asia Human Rights Commission is eminently credible. It was founded and has it's headquarters in Hong Kong. It has chapters in more than a dozen Asian countries, and has been doing its work since 1995. It is a well respected human rights organization and has collaborated with Human Rights Watch several times. For what it's worth, The Permanent People's Tribunal is international. It was founded in Italy and is the official successor to the Bertrand Russell tribunals I and II They have organized tribunals in many countries. E. San Juan Jr. is arguably the most internationally known Filipino intellectual, Fulbright professor of American Studies,etc, etc.. He has published over a dozen books, many with internationally recognized academic publishers such as Palgrave, and Rowan & Littlefield. Why are we hashing through this yet again when the credentials for these people and groups were already documented three weeks ago? Raggz is flailing and it's becoming a sad waste of a lot of people's valuable time. Just look at his first objection. It concerns the article by E. San Juan Jr called "Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization." Raggz asked, <i>Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US?</i> Perhaps the title itself might suggest that San Juan thinks the U.S. is significantly complicit in "Arroyo state terrorism"? Not convinced? Ok, then how about reading the sub-section called <i>U.S. Patronage?</i> Or how about considering one of his concluding observations: "In effect, Arroyo state terrorism is designed to 1) insure regime survival and reproduction of its personnel; 2) protect the privileges of the elite and the capital accumulation of a class fraction of the ruling bloc; and 3) promote neoliberal/U.S. hegemonic supremacy in Asia and the world, given its historic dependency on the former colonizers." Raggz makes the same objection to the second article by San Juan Jr. which contains the following explicit claim: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses...Clearly, the Arroyo regime is hell-bent on stifling all legal opposition, if not liquidating physically all dissenters and critics, by <b>State terror</b>." [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::BernardL, I admire your dedication to human rights (a value that we share), and I admire your fighting spirit. You have articulated a complete lack of respect for my edits, challenged my integrity, and for these reasons alone I am not optomistic that you will ever be willing to work for the consensus necessary to attain NPOV. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Bigtimepeace - I have been asked and agreed to only edit at the page bottom. Per requests from yourself and redpenofdoom, I will resume as before.

:::::''"As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media)."'' We disagree about what the article is. Your are indirectly echoing the argument by BernardL that our article is primarily to give "Voice" to the oppressed. My primary objective is to create a balanced encyclopedia article (which might include such a voice). I'm not disputing your claim, but am ''instead'' pointing out that WP does not have articles about subjects that are not covered by any "mainstream" source. Your claim here implies that this article is untenable because there are no reliable sources? Perhaps as these appear we could then have an article on this topic? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that I had made an argument that the purpose of "our article is primarily to give "Voice" to the oppressed." Please point out where exactly I made that argument. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::"''In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on The Guardian web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)"'' We just disagree. If we were in an academic debate (like that you engage in daily), you would be making a good point. In the WP context, we don't debate the merits of policy here, we implement them. Why not simply offer an echo from a "mainstream media" source for Simbulan's claims? WP REDFLAG policy requires this, and if this is not possible REDFLAG requires that Simbulan be dropped as a source. WP policy is different than it is for academics who focus upon doing original research. When you edit at WP, you need shift from the rules you live by as a professor to the rules of WP. Here is an example where these differ. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Raggz, please supply the relevant extract from [[WP:REDFLAG]] where it says a "mainstream media echo" (or similar wording) is required to back up material sourced to a reliable academic publication, or else that material has to be deleted. You are flat out, 100% wrong here, as everyone is trying to point out to you. But you keep banging on with the same old nonsense. --[[User:Nickhh|Nickhh]] ([[User talk:Nickhh|talk]]) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== More of Raggz' Objections (page break for convenience' sake) ==

:*''"E. San Juan Jr, Ronald Simbulan, the AHRC and the PPT are all legitimate scholarly sources."'' I will take your word for this. ''"...the claims and evidence they give voice to are considered unremarkably commonplace in the Philippines and S.E.Asia."'' Again I take your word for this. Neither point you make is relevant to (my understanding of)[[WP:REDFLAG]]. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::as has been pointed out to you a number of times, the interpretation of REDFLAG that you seem to insist on using is not actully supported at all by the actual wording of REDFLAG[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:*''"I would suggest that the burden of evidence is not on us to demonstrate that the claims of these people are not mainstream but is in fact upon you to show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Philipino geographic and cultural sphere."'' The burden of evidence is determined by policies, not just the one I invoke. Which policy do you suggest supports your burden of evidence claim? The standard of review within WP is the WP policy. You may make excellent arguments to change WP policy, but is this the correct forum for that? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::Once again: it seems to me that it is you who are trying to re-write and re-interpret WP policy and guidelines. The standard for reliable sourcing is not "Popular Western Media Sources", but (in a nutshell) "scholarly research or commentary by competent and respected academics, media sources, or professionals". Under that, Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen and the PPTP all clearly qualify. While it is true that they are not widely read or known in the West, in their home country -- the Philippines -- these sources are either all personally respected and widely known or comprised of individuals who are well-respected or widely known. That is clearly in keeping with WP policy. Thus, i again insist that there seems no substance to your objections. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It seems that we do not agree. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*''"...all of the claims made by these people are -- as the passage shows -- clearly based in a literal interpretation of International legal defitions, while the evidence upon which these claims are based are widely acknowledged by the United States itself..."'' Fine. Just cite these authorities and the question is resolved. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::The citatons are included in the article. You may find them there.[[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*"''Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored)."'' Read [[WP:REDFLAG]]. This is evidence that this claim is ''precisely'' the type of claim that the policy was intended for. This is absolutely untrue, that the Philippine government government exists in some sort of journalistic black hole where interesting and important news is trapped forever. This has really helped our evaluation, we now have a claim for conspiratorial suppression of the Truth. Stone put to sky's contribution does not confirm that these sources fail REDFLAG, but this goes a ''long way'' toward this. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Not at all. I am not speaking of conspiracies. Neither have i said that the Philippines' government exists in a "black hole". I simply made an observation that Western media coverage of the Philippines' political situation rarely -- if ever -- goes into the sort of detail that this section of the article introduces. Therefore the sources ''must'' be taken from other sources; in any event, so long as those sources are reliable then there is absolutely no need to demand commentary from the mainstream U.S. media.

::*If there are no reliable sources then we will need to wait until there are to have this article. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Meanwhile, the article itself clearly cites the murder of ''hundreds of Philipino journalists and academics''. It backs that assertion up with solid research from several different independent and well-respected commissions (some of them by Dutch and Belgian government officials). So the article itself backs up my statement: information about the internal workings of the Philippines' government is being suppressed. That isn't ''my'' assertion; that's the ''official position'' of organizations like Amnesty Inernational, the AHRC, and the Dutch and Belgian government fact-finding missions. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::*This likely is the case, I will take your word for it. Why would this article cover this? Most nations in the world get US aid. The Phillipines does as well, and with Al Quaida in the Phillipines, US Special Forces are engaged in training their military. Have US troops committed state terrorism? What reliable source claims this? Without this source - why are we discussing the Phillipines at all? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*''"... Roland Simbulan is a 20 year professor and Regent of the ..."'' and he has minor credentials when compared with [[Henry Kissinger]], whom would you believe first? Anyway his credentials are not being challenged. This is not a University tenure meeting. We are discussing REDFLAG. Does this policy disqualify this source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::No, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, this policy does NOT AT ALL IN ANY WAY disqualify this source. If you wish to find a source where Mr. Kissinger details that it is his belief and interpretation that the US actions noted by Simulan DO NOT constitute terrorism, we can include that as well.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:*"''But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion."'' We are not discussing that question, but if REDFLAG applies. REDFLAG says "mainstream media". You don't like the policy, then debate it elsewhere. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You have been informed many times that you are not actually applying REDFLAG, simply your misinterpretation of REDFLAG. Please read the NUMEROUS explanations on this page of how you are incorrectly reading and interpreting REDFLAG.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:*"''Now it's your turn. Feel free to debate it here -- i welcome your challenges, but remind you that the onus is not upon me to do all the work myself."'' I am not challenged these people's credentials, this is not a job interview discussion, it is about WP policy, REDFLAG, and my claim that their work is ineligible by WP policy. I already did my work. I checked for a "mainstream media" echo. This is what you are looking for. I'm not working against you, I'm just trying to implement policy. Let me help you, all you need is ''one'' mainstream media echo, and that resolves the challenge. Google away, if you find that, you resolve the question. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::No. You are wrong. It has already been explained to you many, many times about how and why you are wrong. Here is another go at it:
:::From [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]]: '''''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.'''''
:::Nothing in there says "Mainstream U.S. Media sources." In fact, it clearly states that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made"; thus, demanding a U.S. media source to back up claims made about intricacies of U.S.-Philippine government relations is clearly an artificial -- and inappropriate -- standard.
:::Next: [[Wikipedia:REDFLAG]] '''''Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.''''' And later: '''''Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.'''''
:::Now, then: Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen, and the PPTP all clearly qualify as reliable sources (scholarly, academic, published by third parties who use due diligence in fact checking, etc). Their claims are all backed up by unquestionably solid sources: Amnesty International, AHRC, the Asian Times, and various other human rights groups. Thus, they clearly accord with [[Wikipedia:REDFLAG]] and qualify as valid, useful content. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*''"Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant."'' Why? That is what policy requires us to consider. I suggest that you challenge REDFLAG elsewhere, but engage here and recognize WP policy. Do this, or do it not... [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Because you are wrong. I have quoted the relevant policy guidelines for you. Nowhere does it say that ''only'' mainstream U.S. media sources are reliable. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*''"It also seems to be <i>possibly</i> verging on discrimination to hold up <i>Western</i> mainstream institutions as setting the authoritative standard which the rest (ie: majority) of the world must somehow measure up, or be rejected. The Asia Human Rights Commission is eminently credible."'' You are making an excellent point. This may point to a major issue, is there a consensus to ignore WP policy because of reasons like this? I think so. In any case, take these debates to the proper forum. Maybe WP really is a discriminatory institution? Here we comply with WP policy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, we comply with WP policy - but you are not representing policy correctly with respect to [[WP:REDFLAG]]. Every time I bring this up you seem to drop out of the discussion Raggz, so let's see what happens here on try number 15 to engage you with on this. Again, REDFLAG is a list of general cases which "should prompt editors to '''examine''' (emphasis added) the sources for a given claim." Nowhere does the policy say, "When a redflag is raised, remove the source" yet you continually try to use it this way. Nowhere does it say (as you do above) "all you need is ''one'' mainstream media echo, and that resolves the challenge." The phrase "mainstream media echo" does not appear in the REDFLAG policy, right? No, it does not, it is a phrase you have coined and bandy about as though it were policy. There is no Wikipedia policy which requires that surprising claims have a "mainstream media echo." None.

:::Before continuing with your specific points, please, ''please'', '''please''' explain why my interpretation of this policy is incorrect. I've asked you for to do this too many times - please engage with me here on this issue. Explain how REDFLAG has anything to do with deleting sources instead of examining sources carefully (the latter being the actual wording of the policy). We cannot deal with any specific issues until we get past this policy hurdle. If you want to achieve consensus you need to engage on this point.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::::We agree. If we resolve the policy issue, we resolve the dispute between us, because we both are working in good faith.

::::''"Let me also note (and this amounts to another way of discussing Raggz's misuse, as I see it, of WP:REDFLAG) that the title of this article is indeed "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States." As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media)."''

::::*I read the above, and noted that you disagree with WP policy regarding the "mainstream media" in regard to REDFLAG. You keep making two arguments that I keep ignoring as irrelevant. (1) That what is a "remarkable claim" is subjective to some significant degree. Of course this is true, another phrase for this is "does it pass the small test"? We agree, subjectivity is involved. (2) Policy is wrong, the "mainstream media" is irrelevant and Truth is important. I still ignore this argument.

''"In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on The Guardian web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)"''

::::Again, I will not debate WP policy here. It says "mainstream media", so I accept it. I understand why you challenge policy and why I ignore your claims. I'm just editing an article to comply with policy. When you change policy, I will edit that way ''then'', but not now. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::What we are debating is ''our understanding of the policy''. You say you are editing to comply with policy, but I (and others) are saying you are misunderstanding the policy. You are wildly mischaracterizing my argument when you say "Policy is wrong, the "mainstream media" is irrelevant and Truth is important." I have never said anything remotely like that. I am not saying ''policy is wrong,'' rather ''your interpretation'' of a policy is wrong. But you refuse to discuss policy, so I guess we're stuck. I don't know how you expect to get anywhere when you refuse to discuss what is arguably the main sticking point. I'd ask you to keep open to the possibility that you are misinterpreting policy - you seem to assume that you understand it perfectly even though several other people have suggested that you do not.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::I sense your frustration, but cannot help you further. I would if I could. I am open to the idea that I misunderstand policy. I was wrong yesterday and may be wrong tomorrow. I believe that what I wrote summarizes your positions. I really do. What does: ''"Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant''"

::::::Here is how I process your argument: REDFLAG says that the "mainstream media" matters. REDFLAG is policy. You say that it is not policy. I just ignore what you say. No single rule or criteria is policy. The "mainstream media" is but one rule. You claim that this is not a policy issue, well I just ignore that, sorry. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Reposted from above (sorry for the re-post, but in light of your memory issues and tendency to ignore inconvenient responses i felt like it would be best if i called attention to this down here, as well):

::Yes. You are misinterpreting it. It has already been explained to you many, many times about how and why you are wrong. Here is another go at it:
::From [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]]: ''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.''
::Nothing in there says "Mainstream U.S. Media sources." In fact, it clearly states that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made"; thus, demanding a U.S. media source to back up claims made about intricacies of U.S.-Philippine government relations is clearly an artificial -- and inappropriate -- standard.
::Next: [[Wikipedia:REDFLAG]] ''Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.'' And later: ''Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.''
::Now, then: Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen, and the PPTP all clearly qualify as reliable sources (scholarly, academic, published by third parties who use due diligence in fact checking, etc). Their claims are all backed up by unquestionably solid sources: Amnesty International, AHRC, the Asian Times, and various other human rights groups. Thus, they clearly accord with Wikipedia:REDFLAG and qualify as valid, useful content. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Is this article is a POV Fork ==

There are three major questions:

===Does this article comply with NPOV?===

*It is obvious that this article has never been in compliance with NPOV. Does anyone debate this?

*The important question is if people believe that progress is being made? Is progress being made? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.

Read the first source quoted: There is consensus that this source ''alone'' represents all reasonable arguments about the US/Israel relationship. Cohn argues that the US/Israel relationship is "state terrorism" and is the only claim ever made by anyone for this (so, the REDFLAG challenge.) Even if the REDFLAG challenge fails, does the text and this source present all views fairly? Obviously ''no effort whatever'' has been made to comply with NPOV, which is proof that this entire article is a POV Fork. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


::No. Once again you are misinterpreting what is written and how it is used. The source in question is presented only as a way of verifying and validating that there are, in actual fact, reliable legal professionals who assert that the United States is guilty of State Terrorism. Nothing more. As such, it is the very definition of NPOV: the article makes no assertions about whether the cases in question are valid or invalid, whether the events in question are ethical, unethical, justified, or legal. It simply presents the facts regarding the use of the phrase "State Terrorism" and how this has come to be associated with the United States.
::For the article to be POV it would need to include commentary -- commentary from the editors -- that makes claims regarding the morality, validity, or legality of the events and actions presented herein (claims made by the sources themselves are nothing more than facts and material for the aritcle). The editors of this article have gone to great lengths to avoid including their own commentary; so far as i can see, the article is nothing more than a presentation of certain facts and reliably sourced claims, nothing more. Where is it that you perceive a particular point of view as emerging? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Q: Does this article comply with NPOV? A: Mostly. The material presented generally is accurate representations of what the original sources have stated. What might help mitigate any question of NPOV is the presentation of other views of these topics if they exist. i.e. Someone stating that Cuba did not file a lawsuit accusing the US of state terrorism. Or someone directly addressing that the purposeful nuking of civilian targets in Japan was not state terrorism. Or someone stating that the rape and torture of the nun in Central America was either not terrorism or was not connected to the US. The relegation of 'opposition' to an unsourced section at the bottom should be corrected. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

===Is there a consensus opposing compliance with WP policies?===
There is a consensus (in my opinion) to ignore WP policy. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Where do you perceive this consensus as having been reached? For my part, i see nothing but constant reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, all in the attempt to explain your own misinterpretations of usage. It seems to me that there is a wide consensus only that your own usage of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is somehow flawed. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

===IGNORE ALL RULES [[WP:IAR]]===
This section is to “clear the air” and by this policy anyone may say anything they want about me ‘’in this section’’ and I cannot complain. If you edit into this section, anyone may say anything about you as well.

*’’’The POV Corps’’’: You know who you are. If you belong to the POV Corps, your motive for editing this article is ‘’primarily’’ POV-based and your responsibility to edit on WP in compliance with policy is secondary. We all have povs, which is not an issue. The issue is putting your pov ‘’ahead’’ of NPOV. I have done this myself many times, but never intentionally, so I am not condemning anyone. Look at the article. (1) Are all of the relevant fact presented ‘’as is required’’? (2) Are the opposing arguments fairly included?

When you read the article and ask yourself these questions I expect that you will decide to quietly resign from the POV Corps. All that resignation requires is that make your ‘’primary responsibility’’ at WP policy compliance. I expect that we all will retain povs, and that we will debate these. If anyone refuses to resign from the POV Corps, they do not belong at WP until they do. That is my opinion. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Raggz, I would ask you to refactor (i.e. basically remove) this section asap. Nothing at all will be gained, and certainly the air will not be cleared, by having a section where we can sling mud. Referring to editors - even without naming them - as the "POV Corps" is not at all constructive. It's an [[ad hominem]] attack. I will not participate in this section and hope that no one else does either. Again, please consider removing this entirely. I'm sure no one will object.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::No, there is considerable resentment built up, and we need a place to let it out. I believe that there is a need to air things out and that this will be constructive. I'm not surprised that you feel as you do, and I have more respect because of how you feel. Look at how many words I have written seeking consensus above and within the archives. That didn't work, I'm opening myself up, I want to hear.

:::Look at the article...do you say there is POV balance or compliance? The very title of this article means that it is about opinions, and it is almost entirely about opinions - facts are nearly excluded by the title selection. What does NPOV say about balancing opinions? Is there one section with such a balance? Does even one part list all of the relevant opinions? No, it is one long POV Fork. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, considering the number and quality of the sources provided i would have to say that this article is clearly based upon facts and note that any article that's able to expand to this length is clearly addressing a widely debated issue. Of course, it is possible for people to have differing opinions about the phrase "state terrorism" and whether or not it applies to the United States; but what cannot be denied is that this is a passionate issue about which there is much debate. The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to help people come to understand difficult and confusing topics. That's what this particular article does: it presents the facts surrounding a contentious and confusing issue.
:::Bigtimepeace and i have both said that we are open to a re-working of the article content. We both would like to see more balance brought to the page. Unfortunately, merely deleting content will not serve that end. There must be a fundamental change in the direction of the page. The only thing needed is for somebody to actually make the attempt, so this seems a great opportunity for you: why don't you make some suggestions and show us how you think this subject should be treated? We are all willing to take those ideas into consideration. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

===Does this article fail to comply with NPOV because it is a POV Fork?===

*What is a POV Fork?
''"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.”’’.

*Look at the definitions section. Why doesn’t the text in this article comply with the definitions in this article? Why the variance with [[state terrorism]] from which this was forked? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was never forked from there. The two articles developed independently. That this article has hundreds of sources is testament enough to its qualification as a topic of wide debate and interest. It has withstood repeated AfDs precisely by virtue of its solid sourcing and references. Where is it that you perceive the POV as having become skewed? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::Raggz, you are misapplying this section of FORK. FORK would apply if we had an article "Allegations of State Sponosored Terrorism by US" and an article say "Defense of alleged US sponsored Terrorism". This article is a perfectly legitimate, seperate, SUB TOPIC of the more general "State Sponsored Terrorism" article and has nothing at all to do with POV FORKing. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 15:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

===What should be done about the lack of compliance with NPOV policy?===

''(Note: I did not title this section, which was blank aside from the title, I'm just commenting)''. I don't think this article is a POV fork, and I don't think people are trying to ignore policy (there is a disagreement about the meaning of certain policies - which is par for the course here).

I ''do'' think there need to be more "opposing views" in this article (i.e. those arguing - implicitly or explicitly - that certain US actions were not state terrorism) and I have said that for months now. Raggz I would be overjoyed if you wanted to work on this. In the "The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed" section above I offered a possible source for that section (the comment starts after the bolded word '''source'''). Other than Giovanni no one commented on that proposed source. Raggz if you want to work on adding that source in along with me I think it would be a good start to bringing in the "oppose" arguments. If you are truly concerned about this you need to gather sources too, but we could start with this one if you think it appropriate. Let me know.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:You and I ''could'' turn this into a real article. I have not said that there is ''no'' hope for it. This however is not a decision for two editors. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm just wondering what you think of the source I described in the section above and if you would be interested in trying to add some material to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki section to help balance that out. Two people can definitely start working on that, eventually of course getting feedback from others.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The topic itself ''requires'' an article with a POV bias. Take the Cuba section, the topic requires that the three invasions by Cuba of its neighbors in 1959 not be mentioned. The horrific crimes against humanity committed by Cuba that forced a half million (of seven million) Cubans to flee to Miami cannot be mentioned. The continuing war crimes against the families remaining and the rage of the Cubans in Miami cannot be mentioned. The threat and real plans to invade Puerto Rico cannot be mentioned. The assasinations of refugees in Miami by Cuba cannot be mentioned. The Cold War cannot be mentioned, the nuclear missles in Cuba cannnot be mentioned, the fact that Americans were digging fallout shelters to try to survive a Cuban nuclear attack cannot be mentioned. The Reader doesn't know that the Cold War was involved as the motivation of the US acts of war against Cuba in 1961. The article assumes that NPOV can be attained when the article's topic is ''restricted to the actions on one side in any war''. This topic can never really attain NPOV. NPOV will require a topic that ''permits'' NPOV.

:::What about an article on US atrocities during WWII? There were many, there always are some in war. The bigger the war, the more atrocities. Our new article will not mention the war itself, because the topic is not the war - but is ''only'' about the atrocities. We make a list, describe each in the most horrifying detail, and then we have a fine pov biased article in our encyclopedia. This is what this article is about. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Sure, I will help to "''add some material to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki section to help balance that out"'' but can we do this with this topic? We will need to explain WWII first. We will need to document the Japanese and US atrocities in full. This was a brutal war where 60 million people had already died, and there was a powerful motivation to avoid the few million casualties that would occur during the invasion of Japan. Do you realize what you are asking? In context it would be good to cover these topics, but an attempt to insert a bit of balance will fail. WWII cannot be covered in two sentences.

::::Our topic assures that we will fail. We cannot discuss Japan. No war can be covered if we are not permitted to discuss both sides. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::If "the topic itself ''requires'' an article with a POV bias" and "assures that we will fail" then, with all due respect, why are you working on this article Raggz? If you think it can never be made NPOV, I assume you want it deleted? But then why spend so much time on this talk page? I'll note that I asked if you wanted to work on one small issue and instead of simply answering you posted a long comment arguing that no progress can ever be made because the article itself is not worthy of being in the encyclopedia (at least that's how I read it). Your tendency to respond to specific questions about working on the article by shifting the subject (I said nothing about Cuba) and speaking in generalities makes it very difficult to work with you Raggz. And if you really think we are doomed to "fail" in improving this article then why are you even trying? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

:::::On the matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we categorically do not need to discuss all of WWII. In order to provide balance we simply need to provide sources that offer a different take on the atomic bombing of Japan (i.e. a perspective different from the "this is state terrorism" angle). I think that this is very doable.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
: On the matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I would be very surprised if Walzer's description of "war terrorism" was never challenged. We know how liberal philosophers love to talk and talk and talk about every little thing each one of them has ever said. It's a substantial industry in itself.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== I've posted this page at the WP:RS noticeboard ==

Since no one seems to be able to agree about sources and references and every effort Raggz makes to clean things up is reverted, I thought I'd kick it to some outsiders who specialize in dealing with this particular area of policy. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've added a comment there, though I don't think that place gets much traffic. I'm going to open a Request for Comment on the more limited issue of sourcing and [[WP:REDFLAG]]. Raggz has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&diff=187407199&oldid=187405637just said] that he "will not debate WP policy here." We need some outside comments on this issue.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:You forgot to mention that you also placed a complaint on ANI, as well:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_warring_and_WP:OWN_issues I left a comment there, responding, but other editors might want to respond.
::I dropped a note on ANI about the RFC below. Maybe this RFC will help us move forward. Some outside opinion would be very useful I think.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== RFC: [[WP:REDFLAG]] and its application ==

{{RFCpol | section=[[WP:REDFLAG]] and its application !! reason=What is our understanding of the [[WP:REDFLAG]] section of our [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy and to what extent does it apply or not apply to some ongoing debates about sources for this article? !! time=05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)}}

What is our understanding of the [[WP:REDFLAG]] section of our [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy and to what extent does it apply or not apply to some ongoing debates about sources for this article?

===Initial Discussion===

I'll try to sum this up as I see it but welcome other characterizations of the argument of course. There has been a fundamental dispute on this page over the "[[WP:REDFLAG|exceptional claims require exceptional sources]]" component of [[WP:V]]. [[User:Raggz]] has invoked this policy dozens of times to argue that a particular source should be deleted. He argues that if a claim made in a source is "exceptional" as defined by one or more editors (regardless of whether or not the source is reliable by our standards) then there must be what Raggz terms a "mainstream media echo" of the claim in question. For example, [[Marjorie Cohn]] made a claim in an article in an academic journal (see [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Marjorie_Cohn.27s_2002_Arab_Studies_Quarterly_Article|this section]] of the talk page) that US financial support for Israel was "state-supported terrorism." Raggz has asserted that this is an "exceptional" claim which must therefore be "echoed" in the "mainstream media." Since no one has provided a mainstream media source echoing this claim it should be removed.

Several others - certainly including myself - have strongly disagreed. I have argued that Raggz is misreading [[WP:REDFLAG]] which involves, as the name suggests, "redflags" for sourcing problems. This section of WP:V does not give [[carte blanche]] to remove a source that "raises a red flag." Rather it says that "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim." The claim that the US supporting Israel is state-supported terrorism may or may not be "exceptional" (personally I would say it's a fairly common claim). But assuming it is exceptional, WP:REDFLAG would dictate that we examine the source carefully. When we see that it is an article in a respected journal by a scholar on the subject, and furthermore the current president of the [[National Lawyers Guild]], we would probably conclude that the source is acceptable. The manner in which Raggz argues we use this section of WP:V (i.e. any source making an exceptional claim that is not "echoed" in the "mainstream media" must be removed) is simply a misreading of policy.

Such is the locus of the dispute as I see it (I use the Cohn/Israel issue merely as an example - I'm not trying to open a discussion on that specific debate). I'd hope we can get some good feedback here from neutral and interested parties. Personally I'd like to keep it focused to the issue of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and how it applies here as we don't want to drag in all of the other issues on this page.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:The REDFLAG policy means that any editor may make a good faith (and subjective) challenge that a source fails the "smell test". Policy requires (in my opinion) that the source be deleted IF there is no "mainstream media" echo. I have challenged a source that claims that the US/Israeli relationship is a form of [[state terrorism]] even though a Nobel Prize was awarded for the [[Camp David Accords]] that requires that the US send Israel and Egypt about half of US foreign aid. I claim that the US/Israel relationship has widely been discussed in the media, and that this ''one voice'' making an extreme claim that is not echoed by one "mainstream" journalist violates REDFLAG. Why does only one person know or write about this? This is a huge story, if true. I also claim that rather than involve so many others, that the proper strategy was to find a single "mainstream media" source that simply echo's Dr. Cohn's bizarre cklaim. If there was just one echo, I claim that my challenge should fail. If it failed, obviously the text would fail any NPOV test because this single extreme view is not presented in any balanced context like NPOV generally requires. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Raggz, the other problem I see with your comment above (other than a misunderstanding of the policy) is that you are challenging a claim that this article does not in fact make. Thus, you are creating a straw-man which you proceed to knock down as not passing the smell test. However, no where in this article does it ever claim that, to quote you, "claims that the US/Israeli relationship is a form of state terrorism." You've done things like this several times above, and I've asked you where in the article do these alleged claims exist, and you've always ignored those questions. Why?[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::What is the saying: You can dress up a pig however you want, it is still a pig. These editors can dress up there edits and justifications however they want, but underneath it all, it is still deleting and silencing dissent. This is the same tired recycled reasons that editors used before to delete this article.
::How about a Arbcom on this article? It is the only thing which will stop this bickering which has gone on for years. [[User:Travb|Trav]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, I really think we should keep the focus on this specific issue if at all possible. Trav if you can weigh in with your understanding of this policy and how it applies here that would be appreciated. I just don't want this to turn into a generalized debate.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think while its clear to the many editors on this talk page that Raggz is mis-understanding and mis-applying this policy, it will be helpful to get even more editors--esp. outsiders--to comment as well. Then hopefully, at least this line argument will be put to rest, finally. Sure, I've seen POV editors blank and attack this article before, but I want to assume good faith about what is going on now with the attempts at deleting well sourced material. Hopefully this RfC will clear up this policy misunderstanding.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Are you implying that I have "blanked" anything - or "attacked" this article? No, you are not, because you could not support this claim. So do not imply it. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, I said the exact opposite in fact. I was responding to Trav who also knows the history of this article and such actions in the past. In your case, I argued we should assume good faith with your contesting the sourced material and advocating for its removal.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 06:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::[[User|Stone put to sky]] has supported the REDFLAG claim by asserting today that there is a conspiracy where "the information is largely suppressed". Although this claim is not required to support a REDFLAG challenge, it really helps since REDFLAG specifically suggests that sources that elicit such support are unreliable.<ref>''Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored). Thus Raggz' own definition -- that mention must be made by mainstream U.S. media sources -- is patently inapplicable. That there is a government of the Philippines no one doubts. That there is a nation of millions of Philipinos, no one doubts. But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion."''</ref> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raggz|contribs]]) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::: I agree with Bigtimepeace's interpretation of the policy. Raggz, my main problem with your interpretation is that you make two assumprtions which I do not believe hold - i) Information is available to everyone to comment on and more importantly ii) There is a clear group of "mainstream media". This group does not exist (especially when one considers the whole world not just the US Media) and not everyone gets to see every bit of information around the world to comment on. I agree that verifying the owner of the claim, as pointed by Bigtimepeace, is what the policy calls for. --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::We have an example: why does ''only'' Marjorie Cohn know that the US policy that earned a [[Nobel Prize]] is really [[state terrorism]]?

::::::::::What is the "mainstream media"? That of course requires editorial judgement. My past opinion is that the "about us" part of a home page is usually (but not always) illuminative.

::::::::::By your own argument REDFLAG is a pointless policy because there is no "mainstream media". You really need to take this up with WP policy. I have a nose, and I know how to do a "smell test". You cannot perhaps, but I know how. I might make an error, but normally what stinks is actually rotten. FYI, the [[Arab Studies Quarterly]] was run by one professor and folded many years ago. We have many alleged human rights courts offering legal verdicts as sources, a single professor trying to create a peer reviewed journal is an improvement. No one in acedemia publishes in an obscure journal when they can publish in a real journal, ask any professor. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: That would be your argument Raggz. You are the one interpreting the policy to require "mainstream media". I am taking this up with you since my problem is with your particular interpretation and not with the WP policy. I am not going to address your concerns about this particular journal since I believe they are more than adequately addressed below. And as a final sidenote - I do not need to ask a professor; you can be sure I am familiar with publishing in journals ;). --[[User:Ubardak|Ubardak]] ([[User talk:Ubardak|talk]]) 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::[[Arab Studies Quarterly]] ran for nearly 25 years and folded in 2003. It was founded by [[Ibrahim Abu-Lughod]] and [[Edward Said]] - two of the foremost Arab-American scholars of the 20th century (Said was one of the foremost scholars - of any nationality or field in the humanities - of the 20th century). It was very much a "real journal." The fact that it is "obscure" to you says more about your knowledge of the field than about the source. Sorry for commenting on this side issue - I want to keep to the general discussion but did not want to let the preceding mischaracterization go unanswered.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Above i quoted from the relevant pages:
::[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]] states that:
::::''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.''
::[[Wikipedia:REDFLAG]] states:
::::''Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim....Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.''

Taking these two policy guidelines together i think it is pretty clear that there is nothing in it that suggests only mainstream U.S. media sources are allowable.

Further, Raggz is misrepresenting the content of the example he uses; Cohn refers to U.S. military and financial aid for Israel as an example of "State Supported Terror". In other words, there is nothing in Cohn's article that says anything about the Camp David Accords. For Raggz to leap from Cohn's instructional example to a claim that she is in fact targeting the Camp David Accords with her criticism is, at the very least, WP:SYN. My own suggestion is that it is transparently WP:OR.

In any event, Redflag is little more than a comment on Reliable Sources; it expands on the standards established in WP:RS and clearly says that if the sources qualify as reliable then they may be included. WP:RS clearly says that research or exposition in scholarly journals is the gold-standards of sourcing. To once again reiterate: There is nothing that says such claims must be echoed by mainstream media. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have published in peer-reviewed journals. The last one was begun in 1908 and is still publishing with 14,265 subscribers. The [[Arab Studies Quarterly]] was ''never'' accepted by academia, if it was it would not have died the slow death it did. I am not against the [[Arab Studies Quarterl]] in any way. I actually admire the professor who put 25 years into trying to get it into the mainstream. Bigtimepeace misrepresents this issue. Mainstream academic journals ''never'' fold. Journals that are dying ''only'' attract authors who cannot get published anywhere else. Peer review standards may (or may not) suffer very significantly. Prove me wrong Bigtimepeace, name a "mainstream media" journal that has ever folded? Bigtimepeace knew that this article in the extinct journal was the basis for an "extraordinary claim" by me. As an editor and professor, he knew better than anyone that it was bogus, and an "extraordinary claim". He chose to suppress this and did not edit it out, even when I challenged it twice prior under REDFLAG. Why? I assume that his responsibility is first to his POV and second to WP policy. So Bigtimepeace, why didn't you act knowing more than anyone else that this was a bogus source? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well, it's clear that you personally don't consider [[Arab Studies Quarterly]] as a legitimate source. Unfortunately, most universities and academics involved in that area of expertise would disagree with you. ASQ -- contrary to the Wikipedia entry -- is still publishing and accepting articles for publication, and yes -- it remains the English language's most widely circulated academic journal treating the subject of Arabist and Middle Eastern studies. Bigtimepeace has "suppressed" nothing, nor neglected anything. Once again, your arguments are based on fundamental inaccuracies and misinterpretation of the available evidence. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Stone is right, the journal is indeed still being published (the last issue released electronically per [[ProQuest]] is from the Spring of 2007). I should have checked this instead of relying on the Wiki entry (which I'll change now). Regardless, journals - whether "mainstream" or not - fold all the time. There were a whole lot of journals in the nineteenth century - not many of those are around today. The fact that a journal ceases publication (which can happen for a variety of reason) says absolutely nothing about its previous importance, obviously. But this journal did not cease publication, so what Raggz says above is quite moot. Raggz's efforts to impugn my motives and suggestions that I "knew" it was a bogus source (I don't "know" that--I think it is a fine source, better than most sources we find on Wikipedia) are not constructive. Please don't speculate on my motives and suggest that I don't have the interests of Wikipedia and our policies foremost in my mind. Please don't suggest that you know what I "really" think about an issue and that I am merely dissembling.

:::Putting all that aside, I'm still hoping for outside comments on the "redflag" issue.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::If someone offers an opinion from a 19th Century journal that gravity does not exist, I will offer a REDFLAG challenge, and demand a modern "mainstream" echo. "Mainstream" academic journals ''do not'' fold all of the time. Journals that have published for 150 years generally have the same "mainstream" status as the NY Times. A journal with two professors and 78 readers has the same status as a newspaper of that status. (My opinion) [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Not sure where you got "two professors and 78 readers" from, but I'm guessing you made it up. If you have evidence that the journal in question is not "the largest circulating journal in English devoted exclusively to the Arab World" then please provide it - don't make up nonsense numbers to make it look less important. When I said that respected journals "fold all the time" I meant that they folded frequently, not that they always folded (apologies if the wording was unclear). I will be the first to challenge a nineteenth century journal that does not believe in gravity, because any journal that had not heard of [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] by the 1800s should not be used as a source on Wikipedia (though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything). I only referenced 19th century journals to make the point that once-venerable journals do often fold. Anyhow the journal we are discussing has not folded, so there's no point in talking about this.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

''"Not sure where you got "two professors and 78 readers" from, but I'm guessing you made it up."'' Yes, this was a hypothetical (analagous) example, so was the 19th Century claim about gravity. I reserve the right to hypothetical examples to illustrate points. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know about the journal is what [[Arab Studies Quarterly]] says about it, and now you have edited it for accuracy so it is different. Maybe it is "mainstream", maybe not. You claim that mainstream status is irrelevant anyway? [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:Visitors Note: The other editors have shifted some discussion to my User Page. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked over the talkpage, and it appears that the loci of the dispute are several quotes. The most prominent example accuses the US of financing state terrorism through aid to Israel and committing it by bombing Afghanistan. (The same quote also mentions the Palestinian "national liberation struggle".) I'm not sure that too exceptional a claim, but even so, its from a well-known peer-reviewed journal, and written apparently by a professor of international law who's prominent in the field. I have no opinion on the use of the quote, which must have been taken out of context because otherwise it sounds a little silly (or perhaps dated, to early in the [[Second intifada]]), but as far as the source goes, I don't think I can claim that it's anything but excellent. [[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|talk]]) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I moved (copied) the above from the reliable sources notice board to here as its part of the feedback that is helpful.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Renaming the article ==

Has anyone considered renaming the article to help resolve some of the problems in the long-run? Focusing primarily on "state terrorism" seems a little too specialist to me and it provokes passions on both sides. How about something simple like [[Criticism of United States foreign policy]]? At the moment it is merged with the general article on US FP.

If the criticism page was demerged it would allow a more meaningful discussion of the negative aspects of US foreign policy as a whole. For specific events that could be considered "state terrorism", the page could refer to the articles of those events. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh John, your rational and excellent suggestion is so naive and innocent about how irrational this page works. There has been massive debate, edit wars, and reports to [[WP:ANI]] about changing the title. Several Arbcoms have been called on members of this article, and several have been indefinitely booted. I suggested a similar title John, and everyone on the left and right scoffed. If you want to you can request a page move, I can show you how, just ask. Good luck.
:Here is (part) of the sorid history about this article's title:
:* [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_12#Title]]
:* [[Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_10#NPOV_Title]]
:* [[Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_10#Title_of_article_and_allegations_in_contents]]
:*RFC: [[Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_9#Title]]
:* [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_8#Title]]
:* [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_8#Note:_Please_see_the_village_pump_policy_discussion_regarding_the_title_of_this_article]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_8#NPOV_on_account_of_the_title]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_8#Change_title_to_.22American_war_crimes.22.3F]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_7#title]]
:*My request for move, similar to yours John, opposed by almost everyone: [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#Requested_move]]
:* [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_4#OK.2C_so_the_name_itself]]
:*My comments about the title, citing successful precedent: [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_4#Can_we_learn_from_other.27s_mistakes.3F]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_3#Title_of_the_article]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_3#My_suggestion.2C_hybrid_of_Trav.27s:_Terrorism_in_the_United_States]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_2#Name_suggestions]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_1#American_terrorism_-_Neologism]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_1#There_was_and_is_no_consensus_whatsoever_to_redirect_this_article_to_Terrorism_by_United_States_of_America]]
:*[[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_1#This_article_is__about_the_term_American_terrorism.2C_and_the_title_needs_to_reflect_that]]
:[[User:Travb]] 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::The proper forum might be [[Unites States Foreign Policy]] if a fair and balanced article is desired. NPOV policy requires that all views be addressed by that article. Why an article dedicated just to one argument? 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]])
:::Boy is it weird that you just suggested that John. Literally thirty minutes ago I was thinking that that exact phrasing might be a title that would work and even checked and found that it was a redirect (I've long been interested in changing the title to this - Travb I don't remember your suggestion but I thought it was a bit different than that, maybe I'm wrong). Such an article would take a lot of work, and would be susceptible to the criticism that it was a fork of the main [[Foreign Relations of the United States]] page (personally I think that would be perfectly acceptable). I would say if we did that we should have a fairly significant section dedicated to the accusation that the US has committed terrorism. We'd have to cut down what we have here quite a bit, but I think that would be doable and we could and should retain all the key sections with many slimmed down a bit. The difficulty would be to gin up interest in the new article. The "criticism" could come from the right, left, and center so it would require a lot more work. It also could/should encompass a much larger time frame (theoretically we would want to discuss critics of the [[Quasi War]], for example). I would be interested in this idea and would hope that others would give it serious thought. However I think it would be a very difficult undertaking and I don't think we should rush into it or anything (obviously). It's weird though that we don't have an article called [[Criticism of United States foreign policy]]. A lot of our problems would drop off if we could move the best parts of our content here over there and then add more material to the new article, much more broad in scope.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*I don't agree which changing the title. There is nothing wrong with this title, nor it is too specialist. All states with notable allegations (or facts) regarding State Terrorism should have their own article like this one. That it elicits strong opinions from editors who are emotionally connected to the subject is no excuse not to cover it per WP's policies on NPOV, Neutrality, Verification, OR, SYN, etc. This articles existence and perseverance in the face of nationalist objectors proves its viability. Criticism of US foreign policy could be a different article, although such an article would soon be very huge and probably need to be broken up into several other ancillary article, one of which would be this one. So I'm in favor of such an article, but it should not affect this article, as one section would be detailed analysis of the various instances of US actions that notable scholars have described as instances of State Terrorism.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::US Foreign Policy is criticized for many many many reasons beyond the aspects that are construed as terrorism. It would be fine to have an article on the general criticisms of the Foreign Policy that refers here for specifics about this sub-issue, but as has been noted, simply the information about allegations of state terrorism border on having an article that exceeds typical page/article length in and of itself. [[Special:Contributions/144.15.255.227|144.15.255.227]] ([[User talk:144.15.255.227|talk]]) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) ''edit conflict logged me out'' [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Your right Bigtimepeace, my [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#Requested_move|requested page move]] was different, I suggested:
::::::[[Political violence by the United States]]
:::::This suggestion was based on [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_4#Can_we_learn_from_other.27s_mistakes.3F|Successful precedent]], which I suggest you all read <u>please</u>.
:::::User:Giovanni33, you know my consistent argument, "Allegations" is a [[WP:Avoid weasel words|weasel word]].
:::::I agree with User:TheRedPenOfDoom, [[Unites States Foreign Policy]] is too broad, and there is already a page on this. There is violence in all of these accounts, which is not adequately covered in the title [[United States Foreign Policy]].
:::::But at this point honestly, you could request a page move to [[Baloney and ham sandwich]] and I would support it.
:::::<s>I have a sneaking, unfounded, very paranoid suspicion that this name change was brought up to simply weaken strengthening alliances.</s> Everytime name change is suggested, everyone, except for the conservative delete lobby, disagrees. [[User:Travb|Trav]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::How is that we don't have an article called [[Baloney and ham sandwich]]! This is a true travesty! (which is not to say it has anything to do with Travb - that seems unlikely). To hell with this [[American Terrorism]] article, there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_sandwiches far more important work to be done].--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*Redpen, the length of the article does not indicate it cannot be reduced in size. A lot of topics in the world today are very, very substantial. But as I suggested, that can be bypassed by simply linking to the main articles rather than trying to discuss everything on one page. Maybe the start for this article could be to move certain information to particular pages and have more choice summaries here.
*BigT, even if it were a lot of work it would be worthwhile if it resolved some of the disputes.

Guys, if you can't form a consensus on how to move things forward I would try to crystalise the nature of the disputes in a good-faith manner and then seek informal mediation, as I think one problem is a lack of trust between various users. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Size is an issue as it shows the body of literature on a subject that warrants its own article. If we have enough information about one specific topic that can fill an article, then it should have its own article. We don't need to lose any information on this article. Rather, it can use a lot of expanding. The most important fact here is that there is a large and still growing body of literature considering US foreign policy from the conceptual perspective of state terrorism and concluding that U.S. actions have merited the description. Therefore, whatever other articles are proposed, this particular subject/context, is one that needs to be maintained, expanded, and explored--even if its a very controversial subject. About changes to this title, in keeping with its conceptual framework, the word "allegations" is optional to me. Its fine if we remove that to simply "State Terrorism by the United States," and then let the article differenciate that various claims (all factual in nature). The content of the subsections can make it clear the nature of each allegation. However, the current title was the result of much dispute and is the most stable, most accepted, result of the compromise of this debate. So I suggest we not worry about changing the title again at this point and instead work on the content of the body of the article. We have good work ready to be added soon on the Phillipines, Columbia, and Cuba.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:: I don't agree with the proposed name change. as per Giovanni "there is a large and still growing body of literature considering US foreign policy from the conceptual perspective of state terrorism and concluding that U.S. actions have merited the description." There is certainly good reason to construct another separate article that is broader in scope. I'm all for that.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::John this also has already been tried: [[Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#RESULTS]]
:::These were result of a Strawpoll, which a neutral mediator [[User:WikiZach]] decided the results for. Several people then refused to abide by the results.
:::The only thing that stops edit wars here is page protection for long periods of time.
:::Here is what will happen John, here is my prediction that no one will remember, based on my two year involvement with this page:
:::# John, as a neutral peace maker, you will eventually leave the page, tired of getting no were.
:::# Raggz will eventually be chased off the page, leaving behind only the staunchest leftist.
:::# In several months, maybe years, this page will eventually be deleted. [[User:Travb|Trav]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Past history might well be cause for pessimism, but I don't see a reason to voice pessimistic sentiments. It would be great if more people were working on this page and could weigh in on some of the issues here but that's not where we are at. FYI Trav, because I don't know how closely you've been watching, no one is trying to run Raggz off of this page, despite some real problems with that user's editorial style (irrespective of the content debate). I'm on the verge of letting myself be run off the page though...--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::'''"The only thing that stops edit wars here is page protection for long periods of time."''' I have not seen any serious threats of edit wars breaking out here recently. I have not seen much in the way of any discussions moving towards concensus, but edit warring has not been an issue.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
: A comparison to the article circa October 2006 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&oldid=81165599]] reveals significant improvement: 3-4 times more citations. references from professors from Princeton (Falk, Mayer), Yale (Selden), Columbia (Walzer), Human Rights Watch, and numerous others, a substantial reference section listing academic studies like Death Squad: An Anthropology of State Terror, Western State Terrorism and War and State Terrorism, and an opposing views section. I personally am not opposed to working with editors who are critical of the concept in an effort to include balancing content that is relevant to the topic. The problem is that the only right-wing editors that I have ever encountered on this page keep making blanket claims about deleting entire sections and quite often the whole article. I have yet to encounter one right-wing editor who made the effort to inform himself of the literature, which always seems an important prerequisite to me, if one is to engage in an honest manner in the editing of an article.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing the article to such a title would be, essentially, altering the article from a ten-page treatment to a 500 page book. I have no problem with such a page being created, but ''this'' particular page treats its subject rather well. The particular subject treated by this page is how the idea of State Terrorism relates to the United States and its actions. As i have said before: i think that the page suffers from a fundamentally flawed structure, but that is not because of those of us insisting on the less-convenient aspects of this page. From the beginning, i have been interested in bringing forth a discussion that looks a little more like [[http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/i/StateTerrorism_2.htm | this]]; my every effort to work towards that end was, however, deleted by that steadfast group of deletionists who so love to make their presence felt, here.

Now, i think that article i just linked to suffers from some serious flaws; certainly, the events and discussions that take place on this page should be included in Wikipedia and by -- by all means -- should be referenced here; but perhaps they shouldn't be only upon this page. Perhaps less detail is in order and links to other pages would be more suitable. To work in that way, however, would be very troublesome for maintenance. The simple fact is that it is much easier to get material deleted from Wikipedia than it is to get it recognized as valuable.

So i can understand that some might think it would be better to create a monster-sized entry like "Crticisms of U.S. Foreign Policy"; but if y'all think that page would be in any way less contentious or more likely to escape the attention of the deletionists who currently afflict this page then y'all are dreaming. The most likely result would be a broad but shallow treatment of U.S. foreign policy. Because the page would be so huge, most of the information on this page would gradually be whittled away, deleted or replaced by t.v.-style platitudes, ultimately to be reduced to the level of pre-school rhetoric that currently dominates today's "mainstream media".

Further, there would be outcry that there is a category starting with the word "Criticisms....". And yes -- i assure you that those who would make that argument would win. So in the end, we would simply see this article wiped off of wikipedia and the information presented here would disappear.

Except that this information is ''precisely'' the sort of thing Wikipedia should be serving people. This is the sort of thing that many people around the world know about, for which there are many witnesses, to which many voices can contribute, refer, and elaborate upon, but for which there is virtually no monied support for in the U.S. These events that are presented here indisputably occurred. Nobody questions that. They were indisputably the direct and acknowledged result of U.S. policy. They are the source of untold tensions and pushback against U.S. influence around the world. It is my firm faith that, by presenting these facts here, people are being given a neutral, unbiased glimpse of information that is critical to making informed decisions and fundamental to making the world more humane.

So obviously i, myself, cannot singlehandedly hold off the attempts to change the title of this article. But i will not agree to further watering down of the name. Changing it will only result in greater problems and watering down of content. The original title was either "State Terrorism and the United States" or "State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States". In a world where the United States Government is champing at the bit to initiate a war against Syria and Iran based solely upon its insistence that these two countries are guilty of "State Sponsored Terrorism" it is unquestionable that either title is perfectly sensible and neutral. To presume otherwise is to assume that the usage of that phrase by the U.S. government is ''not'' neutral, that it is, instead, ''merely cynical rhetoric, devoid of content and without foundation in law.''

And to presume that is to transgress far beyond mere "WP:OR" or "WP:SYN".

That the deletionists here are not aware of this obvious and objectionable inconsistency and lack of patriotism does not surprise me. There are few people in the U.S. whose understanding of national and international relationships is subtle enough to grasp that truth. But i would hope that the rest of you here give careful consideration to what i'm saying.

To wipe this article -- or its information -- off of Wikipedia is to simply give in to the most cynical and undeserving political motives. There is no justification for it, and i hope that those here demanding yet another name change will acknowledge the likely result of their suggestions and back away. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:FYI, there are lots of "criticism of X" pages on Wikipedia that are not deleted. The idea that renaming the page accordingly would lead to its eventual deletion is a joke - if anything it would make it easier for it to stick around.
:As for it becoming a 500 page book, again, that is not necessary. The problem with long articles is people refusing to use choice selection and instead throw in everything they find into one place. I have put a message about the article length below. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Please allow me to say that again ==

I am a long winded old man and sometimes i post more than is good for anyone involved. For that i'm sorry. But i would like to draw attention to my two fundamental points:

* In a world where the United States Government is using the accusation of "State Sponsored Terrorism" to provoke war upon two different nations then it is clear that the phrase itself can only be interpreted one of two ways: as a neutral, legal term of evidence (in which case there is no "POV" per Wikipedia's guidelines), or it is merely a cynical propagandism. In other words: to assume that the usage of "State Terrorism" is inherently POV is to presume that U.S.'s own usage is ''not'' neutral, is only ''cynical propaganda, devoid of content and without foundation in law.''

For my part, i would prefer to believe that the U.S. government is actually something more than a machine that will say anything to provoke war. I hold the standards implicit in this term as valuable measures, and as such i feel they should be evaluated as critically and objectively as our own human frailty might allow.

Second:

* The content presented in this article is clearly meaningful and useful. It is also contentious. But short of simply deleting the content it appears that the objections will never disappear. I, for my part, go out of my way to encourage every person objecting to this page to contribute content for our consideration. I have yet to see one -- not a single one -- take me up on that offer. That says nothing about me, and i promise: given material for consideration i will be happy to respond as critically and analytically as this altogether important subject demands.

I say it again: i welcome contribution by people dissatisfied with the article. I will be strict, but i will not be unfair.

Changing the name, however, will not facilitate contributions. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think it safe to say there is no consensus to change the title, or fundamental framework this article rests on. For that I'm glad, as there is much material that needs to be elaborated on, and there is no reason why this article can't continue to improve in doing so, in a NPOV and Encylopedic manner. So lets move on... Much progress has been made and I look forward to moving on with the Philippines, Columbia, and improving of the Cuba sections. It would also be nice to have a conservative editor to assist in actually improving the article instead of trying to get rid of it.:)[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::Where did anyone suggest getting rid of anything? The suggestion was to move text to the articles in question. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm ok with moving content to other articles where they fit (many wikipedia articles have some overlap), but I'm not ok with taking anything away from this article, because to do so would be to remove it from the conceptual framework of State Terrorism, a very important concept in our time, and one which is growing in the literature. So if you are not talking about changing the title/subject, and not deleting any content from this article, but only adding information from this article to related article, then I'm all for that.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::So you're telling me that the page can't ever drop below 100kb? That is a rather bizzare attitude to take. Clearly any subject can be condensed if editors will simply take the time to work on it. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That is so patently untrue. A properly treated subject of any controversy, depth, or importance will necessitate more words devoted to its explanation and exposition. As it is, the article is currently much shorter than [[The United States]], [[Law]], [[World War II]], [[The Vietnam War]], and comparable to [[Human Rights]], as well as quite a few other pages. Obviously, articles that spark controversy will be longer than those that don't; articles treating subjects with a long history will also clearly be longer than those which don't. This subject wins on both counts; add to that the public nature of Wikipedia editing practices and controversial arguments become even longer; add to that the controversy surrounding the historical events that this particular subject treats and presto: even longer.
:::::It seems to me odd, then, that you are objecting to this article's length. Whether or not it is long is relative to whether or not the subject requires that many words to elaborate the information and concepts presented therein. Obviously, this one does. Just like the [[Evolution]] page; except that page happens to go into much greater depth, detail and exposition about the fundamental ideas and arguments than is probably needed. This page, on the other hand, has included lots and lots of evidence -- for the simple reason that there were, once upon a time, people called Tom Harrison, TBeatty, and Morton Devonshire who -- among others -- targeted this page as one they wanted deleted, and towards that end spared no means to effect their will. As a result of their activities and constant challenging of rather uncontroversial facts and widely acknowledged information, several editors (or at the very least, myself) were '''''forced, against their editorial judgment''''', to develop the page in the direction we now see it has taken.
:::::Having witnessed that process i can firmly assert i ''''know'''' that, should this supporting evidence provided here be deleted, then those statements elaborating the fundamental themes of the page -- that the U.S. has been accused of State Terrorism, that there is solid logic and evidence supporting these charges, and that the International Community as a whole is extremely concerned about the U.S.' official positions regarding these issues -- will also be deleted. That fear (or hope) is what no doubt motivates the other editors here, as well.
:::::That said, there is clearly a great deal of expansion that could be added to this page; as it is, it gives the impression that is only these countries, and no others, which so condemn the U.S. I am open to ideas about how to develop linking sub-pages, but again: because of the relevancy and reliability of the included material to the page-subject -- and because of the clear hostility of some to the nature of the facts and information provided here -- there simply is no justification for reducing page content on the basis of it being "too long". [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 08:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::If it is so "patently untrue", how is it that an article I worked on to FA-status, [[Japan]], got in well under 100kb? Are you telling me there is less to talk about in Japan than the US?
::::::It is hardly odd that I am objecting to length. You seem to forget the average reader - are they really going to trawl through all of this? If no, then clearly this article is going the wrong way! If you say "yes" then I think with all honesty you are thinking of whether you want to read through this. Go check the [[Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article|"rule of thumb"]] section on the article size project page. I am not saying it is a rule, but if you want to aim this page towards FA status one day it will probably fail if you can't reduce it considerably. That is another observation because I've seen it happen to numerous articles. If you don't care because you'd prefer to write it as you want it then you're not thinking of the people Wikipedia is designed for (uninformed/uninvolved but potentially interested editors). [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The average reader will not trawl through all of [[Law]], [[World War II]], or [[The United States]], either. The average reader of Britannica or MSN-whatever-it-is doesn't "trawl" through the entirety of each entry there, either. This entry is here to provide a syllabary of the relevant information to which a reader may refer for further study; it is, as it stands, very successful at that. Yes, it could be more concise, and yes, perhaps a re-organization would be useful. But the unfortunate truth is that you have yet to contribute any suggestions beyond vague demands based upon assertions about your personal vision's value. Pardon me if i am skeptical; i have been intermittently present on this page for nearly four years, now, and have seen many people like yourself come in, demand change, deletions, reorganization, or what-not, and then steadfastly refuse to contribute anything. Most of them then disappeared to make similar demands on other pages. To a man, their contributions were always to promote a particular political POV while censoring another.
:::::::If you are so certain that your ideas and experience are as valuable as you clearly think they are then it should be a very small step for you to create a sand-box and start showing us what you're suggesting. Until you do so, however, we will remain skeptical that your intent is anything beyond the mere deletion of content.
:::::::As i have already stated above, several times: '''the demands for this much information are the result of demands for deletion'''. Similarly, it appears that an informal pattern has emerged over the years:
::::* Some editor appears and starts making repeated and altogether random challenges of the sources here, basing their challenges upon thinly-stretched interpretations of wikipolicy.
::::* Shortly afterwards, an AfD is brought.
:::::::That has happened now at least four times that i, personally, can remember and -- what do you know! -- it seems to be happening again. For all i know it may have been going on ever since the very first incarnation of this page. My point, however, is that your efforts may very well have got [[Japan]] improved. That is rather irrelevant here, though, because that article has never been openly and repeatedly targeted for deletion. Morton Devonshire had this page listed up on his "Conservative Noticeboard" right next to a long list of "Successfully Deleted Articles", with every last one fitting perfectly the agenda of the "conservative" U.S. political mainstream. While that username may have disappeared, considering the convenience of cut-and-past and Yahoo! Groups it seems to me that there is little reason to doubt that the board itself hasn't been relocated somewhere else.
:::::::If you are going to hold up for me the article on [[Japan]] -- which is now at "just under 100K" -- then i'd like to suggest that your next effort might be [[The United States]], which is nearly twice that length. The populations are about the same in the two countries, and while Japan's territory is a bit smaller it more than makes up for it in length of history; thus, it should be an extremely easy task for you to reduce that page and bring it more into line with your vision of what an Encyclopedia entry should be. I'm sure that once you get it beneath 100K i'll be quite impressed.
:::::::Unfortunately, this page is not a geographic/cultural/historical page; instead, it deals with the recent history of warfare, violence, and international law, all extremely large and contentious subjects. I would worry that experiences on [[Japan]] and [[The United States]] won't really count for much over here; thus, perhaps it would be good if you spent some time re-working the [[World War II]] and [[Law]] pages, since both of those are considerably longer, far more detailed, and much harder to read than this one. Once you have demonstrated your expertise in reducing those articles i will have no doubt that you are well suited to offering effective leadership on this page.
:::::::On the other hand, those suggestions do seem a bit extreme. So perhaps your best bet would be to simply create a sand-box and show us what you are thinking of; that simple gesture would go a very long way towards convincing many people here that you are suggesting more than the whimsical removal of material that you personally object to.
:::::::And please, do correct me if i'm wrong -- but isn't that motivation -- the removal of material according to personal whimsy -- much, much more contrary to Wikipedia's spirit than the small matter of this page's length? Our article is divided into sub-sections, any one of which is easily parsed and each the result of the hard-won work and compromise and work of a great many anonymous and varied editors (far more than merely me -- this isn't my page, by any means). To simply delete material based on one editors' personal inclination is a far more serious transgression.
:::::::So why don't you make that sand-box? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Article length ==

At over 100kb the article is far too long. If the page is not to be renamed/merged it is important to work towards a tighter, less rambling version. There are lots of topics out there that Wikipedia could have even more on, but that doesn't help the average reader who would probably move on rather than try to trawl through this page. As it is certain editors seem to want to make it even longer.

Remember, Wikipedia isn't about indulging a personal interest - it's about helping someone understand a topic. I don't see how something this long can actually help the average reader. As someone used to reading long articles I must admit I have little or no interest wading through all the material here. In the unlikely event that hardly anything can be cut, content can go onto articles about the subjects in question. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the page on the atomic bombings and see no section on "state terrorism". Why is that? [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Because it doesn't need one. Just like it doesnt need and have a separate section as a War Crime, Crimes Against Humanity, or Genocie. There is an opposition section that details the main arguments, and in the lead sentence it sums up how the different ways the opposition has characterized the bombing, including by mentioning "''state terrorism''." So there it is! Any detailed section about any of these sub topics properly belongs in its own article, such as this one, dealing specifically with State Terrorism. For it to be on the other article would be Undue Weight unless each of the other conceptual frameworks were likewise expanded.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One further thing, if any section needs to be expanded it is the "opposing views" area. One of the article's largest problems is that it is one-sided. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:Rather than some generic 'opposing views' section ('US does not support state terrorism' says credentialed source. 'I concur,' agreed second reliable source.), it would be more in line with the 'FORK' policy that Raggz has brought up to have these other view points integrated into the other sections. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Whatever. Either way the article is one-sided. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm so happy to hear that you're motivated to make this article better. Why don't you start a sandbox and begin making suggestions there, as we have done with the Philippines' section? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

: The article stems from the existence of a notable and growing literature on the topic. If it gets too long there is a very natural way of splitting it: a main article explaining the general conceptual framework, an article concerned with US state terrorism in Asia and the Middle East and a third article concerned with US state terrorism in Latin America. For the moment I think the Iran section is unnecessary, the Cuba section is ripe for a re-write which will be more economical. I think case studies are not so valuable to the article. They can be described in a shorter form and possibly linked to separate articles representing the cases.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Bernard, the page is already too long - it isn't a future possibility. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

===Section Break: Article Length, Pt II===
:::I'm sorry -- i'm not clear on what your problems with the article is. Is it that it's too long -- which, i will once again remind you, is a direct result of the activities of deletionists and the repeated efforts to get this page deleted from Wikipedia -- or is it that it's POV?
:::Once again i will suggest that we could quite easily begin cleaning up the article were we only to see someone who objects to it do more than try to delete the reliably sourced, relevant and factual information provided here. There is no question that the facts and material presented here are apropos to the page. The only question is how we might encourage people such as yourself to do more than delete content or create superfluous obstacles to page maintenenance. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It is too long and is POV. I'm not interested in why the page got here because I'm not saying it's all down to you. I'm making an observation.
::::You won't encourage me to do more than delete content deleting content and/or create "superfluous obstacles to page maintenenance" - I presume you are talking about Raggz - if Giovanni and Bernard are going to round on me for filing a peer review request and make snide comments about how "little" I know having been here for only a few days. Funnily enough, as someone commented a little while ago, it looks like I am being chased off by people who think they own the page and are hostile to outside involvement where it doesn't match up with what they think. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 08:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, i do contest that it is POV. From what i can see, the opinions and facts presented here are reliably sourced and widely acknowledged. It appears that you are making the mistake of assuming it has an implicit affirmation of the accusations presented. I challenge that; the problem with the article is that the evidence is, in and of itself, sickening and unpleasant to consider. But there is nothing stated in the article that takes an editorial slant one way or the other.
::::::I will, however, admit that the article provides very little meaningful debate or context about the concepts presented here. The unfortunate truth, however, is that in order to do that it must ''become longer''. Similarly, i can testify -- from personal experience -- that any attempt to bring in reliably sourced, contrasting perspectives to this page will be immediately deleted ''unless they use the phrase "State Terrorism" or are directly referred to by a source that does''.
::::::Now -- i am presuming good faith, here -- but what i want to ask you is a simple question: do you not grasp how that irresponsible standard of admission might influence the development of the page?
::::::The absurd thing about it is that the people who introduced this standard are the very ones who have most loudly condemned it as too "POV". Three years ago -- and yes, you can go back into the diffs and look it up -- it was TravB, MONGO, Tom Harrison, and a few others who established this precedent. I very loudly and firmly objected to it then, pointing out that it would lead to this current state. Nobody listened. Ever since the same group has mercilessly enforced the standard; at every stage i have -- including now -- loudly protested that it is precisely this standard that has forced the page into the current format. If a source must reference or be referenced by an advocate who condemns the U.S. for the practice of State Terrorism then ''that effectively rules out any opposing views''.
::::::So i will say it once again: the resistance you are seeing here is not against you. It is against people who, occasionally, re-appear and demand the deletion of content and -- on at least seven occasions -- the entire page. Few pages on wikipedia have withstood seven AfD's and that makes this one of the most hotly contested in the whole project.
::::::Thus i will, once again, politely suggest that you start up a sand-box and we will all see where we can take it from there. I edit in good faith, and i have confidence that BernardL does, as well. It appears that you and Giovanni have some "water under the bridge", but i have faith in his ability to be fair.
::::::The problem, however, is that you have yet do suggest anything beyond the mere deletion of content. We need to move beyond that to make progress. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The article is POV because it mainly just presents one POV - that the US supports and carries out state terrorism. That isn't balanced. I'm not surprised there are references because a lot of people out there hate the US and everything it stands for. Is it surprising that the Cuban government would say all that the article mentions about the US? I am sure there are lots of people out there who don't argue because of a separate agenda, but the wealth of material is hardly indicative of anything in particular.
:::::::I am here to primarily offer observations. You can ignore them at your will. But there are lots of places material can be chopped and cropped. It is just one thing to do, but it is something that can be done nonetheless. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

: John - I proferred 3 concrete measures which I suggest could be undertaken to trim (Iran, re-write Cuba, case studies). Moreover, I see no reason why, if it is deemed appropriate, an organic structural split could occur in the future. Who are you to dictate that there exists no such possibility of that?[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::I second that, Bern, although i urge -- as i'm sure you agree -- that the Cuba re-write must be undertaken with a great deal of care. Also, i'm skeptical that the Iran section can be shortened much.

::However, another thing i worry over is: where else would this information be properly moved? Perhaps we should move each sub-section to its own article: "Allegations of State Terrorism, U.S. :: The Nicaraguan Case", "Allegations of State Terrorism, U.S. :: The Cuban Case"; and so on. There is certainly quite a bit of material that we could add to each of those pages so that each one might grow to be as long as this one (longer, probably, in the case of Cuba / Central American countries). Any other wording would be open to misinterpretation, and simply adding a section to each country's page would likely be met with the same objections we see here (i.e. -- "The page is already too long"; or, more likely, "Why just a section on their objections to the U.S? Why not the accusations made against other countries?"; etc).

::Thus, my suggestion is that if we decide to move these sections to links off of this article that the be maintained as specific case-studies linked directly back to various pages: [[State Terrorism]], [[Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States]], [[The United States]], and each country's own page as well: [[Nicaragua]], [[El Salvador]], [[Cuba]], [[The Philippines]], etc. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

===What would you call the subarticles?===

I removed the article length tag, and then reverted myself when I saw this discussion. Is there really an authentic proposal to create [[WP:SUMMARY]] articles with titles like [[Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in Cuba]] etc? [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] ([[User talk:MilesAgain|talk]]) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:No, I think that is inappropriate. I would seek to use existing articles on countries and human rights/US foreign policy. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think the primary hesitation that some editors have to breaking off to sub articles is that instead of having to defend one article from vandals and POV, there are several targets that vandals and POV crusaders will target and maintaining several articles in a healthy status will become an overwhelming chore. At least that is my sense of the conversations I have seen on this page.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::So then you would restore the content here and have yet another example of these people causing trouble. If they are so problematic you should use the formal dispute resolution channels. Complaining about them such that you can't even summarise material rather does suggest you should do that. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Peer review requested ==

I hope that if a good number uninvolved editors take the time to evaluate this article fully, at least most of you will all agree to work together on that basis. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:: John, the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States|request]] that you made was very biased and question-begging. It's also notable that your actual participation in this article has been very limited and you have thus far evidenced precious little knowledge of the subject, especially the relevant literature. I do not think I am going out very far on a limb in suggesting that your real motive for being here is because of personal vendetta you seem to have against Giovanni33. [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::He linked it by adding the template to the top of the page. He was not trying to keep anything a secret. I suggest that you strike your previous statement. [[User:Ice Cold Beer|Ice Cold Beer]] ([[User talk:Ice Cold Beer|talk]]) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Bernard, I find it a real shame that you assume the worst about someone just because they've disagreed with your mate, Giovanni. I take some proactive steps to get outside views and you throw it back in my face. Well I think you rather need to readdress your attitude to the project, because you certainly won't get anyone to help you if you carry on like that. Or would you prefer to chase away others because you want to keep things in this group, lest people with new ideas and views come along?
:::And how exactly is the review request biased? That I say there are disputes? That I say some editors are motivated by politics? Oh of course, everyone here is acting out of good faith and doesn't have an axe to grind, or a POV to push. I'm sure everyone here thinks Raggz is a helpful and considerate editor - obviously all those messages on his talk page were meant for someone else! Oh dear, it looks like Giovanni's account was hacked by some troublemaker.... [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Giovanni, accusations of wikistalking from yourself are a wonderful joke, especially given your recent reversion on the [[Republic of China Navy]] article. You have this very strange interest in military affairs only when I edit the page in question.
:::I'm reminded of something involving a pot, a kettle and the colour black..... [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::And, did I stay there to continue any arguments, etc? Or did I only make one single edit (as I did)? So the comparison does not hold water. Besides, its a logical fallacy, and doesn't address my actual point that is about you being here--not me. making a ''one time'' visit to another article you are on.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 22:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Giovanni, you didn't stay because you don't know anything about the Taiwanese Navy and would have looked very foolish if you had tried to discuss the subject. No I suppose the comparison doesn't hold water because I am trying to provide some input on the talk page to help move this article forward, whereas you were being silly in following me around and making an edit that was completely misleading. So, yes, you are right on that front. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I think your assumption about not knowing anything looking foolish may very well apply to yourself in this article. But to be factual, I only left one edit because you corrected the misleading part I objected to. I did not go there to argue with you, and even if I disagreed, I would have preferred to disengage, esp. if you raised this point, as it would indeed appear to be me seeking further conflict with you (exactly what it appears you are doing here, now). In fact this very thread proves my point--which you continue to ignore.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I know far more about this topic than you do about the Taiwanese military. That you "corrected" a "misleading" comment to make it even more misleading is a good example of that.
:::::::As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth. If you had sought to avoid conflict you would have ignored Bernard's comment and maybe even welcomed my attempt to get an outside view. But, no, you decided to assume bad faith and jump on it to have a go at me. For once, just once, Giovanni, it would be nice if you practiced what you preached as it would make the place more pleasant for everyone. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
DO NOT BRING YOUR OUTSIDE CONFLICTS HERE. This page is ONLY for discussing potential edits and changes to this article. IF you cannot play and talk nice here, go elsewhere.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 00:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Interesting that the reality is the direct opposite of what you say, and the irony is that what you say about me applies to yourself. I did not assume bad faith. I said I hope you are here to genuinely help and not back to your wikistalking ways, to seek conflict, after it was pointed out that your role here appears to be such by another editor. However, I did point out that since we disagree and have a history of this to the point of being disruptive enough for an arbcom case, then there is question of appearances, for why you choose to come to this article where I edit most often out '''2,199,609'''other articles articles from you to choose from? Coincidence that its the main article I edit? I think not. I suggested that for the sake of appearance that you are seeking conflict and doing what you have accused me of doing (falsely), and to avoid conflicts per policy (as well as just being wise)- you should disengage. I point out that no where did I assume bad faith, as you do. In your case, that is exactly what you are repeatedly doing, by making a false, bad faith assumption that I "''delight in making snide comments...so as to annoy me...etc''." That is totally false, and a major violation of Assume Good Faith as well as a personal attack If you don't retract it, I shall report it and your objective disruptive of this article by wikistalking me.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Giovanni, this is ridiculous. You attacked me and undermined my motives by not assuming good faith. You can't have your cake and eat it by making a cheap jab and then complaining I am not assuming good faith because I complain about your unpleasant attitude. I will not retract any comments if you do not assume good faith yourself and retract what you have said. The one outside user that commented so far came to say that Bernard should strike his suspicions, not that he was right. Report me if you wish - it will show your bad faith. For someone who claims he wants to avoid conflict you want to have the last word and bully me into submission. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Its a shame that you seem unable or unwilling to respond to a rather simple point, but instead launch into a personal attack and a gross violation of AGF. This sanctimonious and defensiveness behavior suggests that my point was not only quite valid, but apparently true. Are you guilty of wikistalking me here to provoke further drama? Its a simple question. However, instead of addressing this, you seem to think it's ok for you to commit further violations by launching into personal attacks, ironically proving my very point--my concern for your sudden appearance here (and other articles that you show up to right after I edit it, to pick a fight). Drop the sanctimony and stop repeating the lie that I am doing what you are doing. I never failed to assume good faith, as you are doing. Again, I repeat my point that you keep distorting: I said I hope you are here for positive reasons but the appearance that you give when you choose to come to the one article I mainly edit--out of all the article on WP--and engage in further editorial conflict with me---has a very negative appearance for you, and that it would be wise for you reconsider your choices, esp. given our history, and your past wikistalking. But, this friendly advice, and question, you are prove so far unable to respond in a civil, mature, and honest manner, instead opting to hide behind personal attacks, ignoring what I said, and making stuff up. That is a shame, and again it seems to prove you are just here to continue treating Wikipedia as your own personal battle ground.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am not wikistalking you - period. I have an interest in this article, but it is fast disappearing thanks to your unpleasant and combative attitude. Maybe that it what you want - I don't know. My prescence here had nothing to do with you until you made it about you.

Personal attacks? What personal attacks. You complain I make them without saying what they are. Complaining about your behaviour is not a personal attack, it is my view. I could be overreacting just as you are with your cries of "wikistalker!", but that doesn't make it a personal attack.

Your earlier comment was far from prudent. If you meant to act in good faith, you shouldn't have brought up the past troubles, etc by just mentioning what I have allegedly done. If I say "well I hope X is here is good faith and not here to troll/wikistalk/cause trouble as he/she has always done in the past" then most people would assume I was trying to annoy/take a swipe at that individual. An honest response would have been "I am going to assume good faith and hope we can put our past differences behind us". You never, ever bring up your own actions, despite the fact your behaviour has often been less constructive and conflict-causing than mine. Indeed you are continuing to harp on about my "wikistalking", as if saying a certain number of times will change anything.

Your problem is you frequently act in a way you think is ok, and then get horribly upset whenever anyone complains. You are not everyone and others react differently - try to think of how others might react, rather than just insist everyone accept whatever you do because you have decided it is ok. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, John Smith, but it seems to me that you both seem to be provoking one another. While Giovanni might perhaps have worded things in a more delicate manner i see nothing in them that would suggest incivility. On the other hand, i perceive your own behavior as working to provoke the situation and make it worse. There is nothing going on here that isn't mutual, and yes -- it seems to be your own presence that has provoked the situation.
::Editors here tend to be rather brusque and unforgiving towards newcomers's input; even so, we maintain our good will and are happy to consider any efforts made to shape or contribute to the article's content. You popped in and, unfortunately, made a few suggestions that are particularly sore spots for discussion. So far it appears that your foremost concern is to delete content and eliminate material. While it may very well be that you have greater hopes for this article, your constant bickering with people about things that occurred elsewhere, coupled with your quick referral of the page to Wiki-admins and intransigent insistence that the article is too long have all served to color you as yet one more deletionist.
::Perhaps you should go get some tea and come back when things have cooled down. I would make the same suggestion to Giovanni except that he and a few other editors here are currently involved with some new additions to the article, and his input is valuable.
::Otherwise, i presume we'll all be able to avoid any more talk about off-page events. They're irrelevant here.
::Should you decide to stay, JohnSmith, i urge you to consider my suggestions below. Until we see some good-faith attempts by you to add content then i worry that you will encounter a lot of resistance to your suggestions.
::A sand-box is the best way to go. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Tags ==

No one has shown any how there is any SYN, or that citations to not reflect what is being said. The only valid issue that remains for the whole article is one of NPOV balance. So I'll remove those other two tags from the top. The tags can remain for the one section that still has those problems. I expect that no one will replace those tags unless they point out the actual problem so we can fix it. Also, this article it not too long. In fact is needs significant expansion. There is a lot more informatin about this subject.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Please do not remove the article length tag. I placed it there only today and started a discussion on it. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== Philippines Again ==

In the sections entitled “Sandbox issues” and “Philippines Sandbox and Raggz’s Objections” Raggz voiced four principal objections to the Philippines sandbox [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BernardL/Sandbox2#_ref-10]] as follows:

1. an article by E. San Juan, Jr. "Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization." Raggz asked “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

2. article by E. San Juan, Jr. "Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity." Raggz asked “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

3. article by Simbulan, Roland G. "The Real Threat." “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

4. Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Raggs wrote “The policy challenge is WP:REDFLAG.”

I think three of the four of these policy objections have already been met, squarely, and the objections have been shown to be groundless...

Objection #4 – Marjorie Cohn is a reliable source and the Redflag claim against her essay has been argued to death on this talk page. There is no reasonable grounds for deleting it based on the redflag guideline, because the guideline is inapplicable to this reliable source.

Objection # 1 – article [[http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sanjuan180906.html]] by E. San Juan Jr. Above I showed that the article clearly demonstrates an integral connection to the concept of significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism against the Philippines. In my counterargument I wrote, “Perhaps the title itself might suggest that San Juan thinks the U.S. is significantly complicit in "Arroyo state terrorism"? Not convinced? Ok, then how about reading the sub-section called <i>U.S. Patronage?</i> Or how about considering one of his concluding observations: "In effect, Arroyo state terrorism is designed to 1) insure regime survival and reproduction of its personnel; 2) protect the privileges of the elite and the capital accumulation of a class fraction of the ruling bloc; and 3) promote neoliberal/U.S. hegemonic supremacy in Asia and the world, given its historic dependency on the former colonizers."

Objection #2 – article [[http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2007ahrcinnews/1130/]] by E. San Juan Jr, to help erase Raggz’s doubts I did the legwork to draw the following substantiation from the article: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses...Clearly, the Arroyo regime is hell-bent on stifling all legal opposition, if not liquidating physically all dissenters and critics, by <b>State terror</b>.

Now to objection #3 – which is an article by Roland Simbulan…[[http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/518/518%20roland%20g.%20simbulan.htm]]

In the article text the citation is 1 of 7 citations for which the context is: “There have been increasing condemnations made of U.S. influence upon the Philippine military, many of which charge the U.S. with the sponsorship of state terrorism[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] through the policies implemented by the military advisers and military aid it has delivered as part of its War on Terror.” I think the article cited pretty much fits the claim. Comments?... And finally a reminder to some that although we are writing with computers this is not a <i>computer game</i>, the injustice in the Philippines is going on right now, [[http://hrw.org/reports/2007/philippines0607/]] [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:''And finally a reminder to some that although we are writing with computers this is not a <i>computer game</i>, the injustice in the Philippines is going on right now''
:Umm, what exactly is your point? You're making it sound like this is a place for activism, which is not what Wikipedia is about. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I think his point is that people who work to delete this content are actually working to suppress knowledge of reliably sourced and well-reported current events. There is nothing that smacks of "activism" in that -- unless, that is, you are are suggesting that to assert a faith in the value of free speech and properly referenced, accurate journalism is "activism" of some sort?
:::Do correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't those two principles fundamental to the Wikipedia project? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:As for the section you want to add/change, I rather disagree with it given this article is supposed to be about things the US does. If you're going to extend it to support given to countries which themselves commit "state terrorism" then really it's a huge mess. That hrw article you referred to actually asks the US to show displeasure against the government. Why would HRW just say that if it thought the US was sponsoring it? Surely it would call on other countries to take action against the US.
:At the very, very least you need to cut it down to what the US does. At the moment it's a rant about what the local government does and then an attempt to tie it to the US. Create an article for the Philippine government if you really want to talk about it - then maybe have a brief explanation for the support the US gives and then why that is "state terrorism". [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

===Section Break -- Philippines Again, Pt II===
::There is no "extension" taking place; the Cohn article clearly articulates that "State-Sponsored Terrorism" is one form of "State Terrorism", and in it she uses U.S. support for Israeli crimes as her example. San Juan Jr, Fr. Cullen, and Simbulan all '''''explicitly''''' make a connection between U.S. sponsorship, complicity, and support and the acts of "State Terror" they describe. In each case, the U.S. is either explicitly condemned as a progenitor of State Terror or lumped in with the Arroyo regime as a co-operator. In [[http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sanjuan180906.html | the]] article, San Juan explicitly references "U.S. Terror", makes repeated reference to Arroyo's "State Terror", and at least five references to U.S. "sponsorhip", "patronage", or "control" of the Arroyo regime and its "terror" policies. Beyond this, he devotes an entire section of the article (5 paragraphs) to "U.S. Patronage". To accuse a nation of "Patronage" or "Sponsorship" of State Terror is clearly to allege that they have committed "State Terror"; to suggest otherwise is to attempt to twist language beyond recognition. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:: My link to the HRW article was not actually for inclusion in this article. Others make a more explicit connection between the state terror in the Philippines and the U.S. It was for general information, because as the issue has been raised most people have seemed nonchalant about it. With regard to restricting this state terrorism article to just the "things the U.S. does" I strongly disagree. The article stems from a serious literature which concerns significant US complicity in state terrorism. In this literature it is well documented that much of this complicity is indirect, in the form of consciously arranging one's affairs so that proxies do one's dirty work, so as to maintain "plausible deniability." The concept of plausible deniability is extremely important, it appears in the highest level planning material, and is analyzed extensively in the literature. One of the best analytical treatments of the doctrine is in "Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability," (Palgrave MacMillan).[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I never said that the HRW article was for inclusion - I pointed out that it rather "strangely" ignores US "sponsorship". Why do you think it did that if it is such an obvious "fact"?
:::I know you disagree on US association with other countries and what you do - otherwise you wouldn't have written it up. You can't hide behind what others have written on the subject because anyone can write whatever they like these days. Who decides what is "serious literature"? No one, other than people that like it.
:::The problem with something like plausible deniability is that there is rarely hard evidence to support the charge. Otherwise the US could never deny anything and the whole thing would be pointless. It's like those that say "ah, the reason you don't hear about it is that it's been covered up". Now I'm sure all the books you've read give lots of credible opinion, but what details do they actually supply that one can check? You talk about documentation, but what documents are actually referred to? What facts can be independently verified outside of those views? [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm afraid your ignorance on this subject is showing, JohnS. There is amble and substantial evidence, including facts that no one denies, to suport many of the claims, however, this is not for you to consider for our purposes here, anyway. That is for the experts, specialists in their field of expertise to document and analyze, and discuss. They make the conclusions, the claims; its for us to simply report what they say accurately. And, yes, this is the serious literature that BernardL talks about. Its only for us to be aware of these issues and to report them, reflecting the content of the various reputable sources. This talk page is not a place for you to get an education on the subject either, as you seem to be doing with your questions that are really off topic.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, Giovanni, the only thing that is showing is your obsession with self-appointed "experts" and "specialists". I asked some very simply questions about what can be verified independently. That you seek to attack and undermine rather than answer speaks volumes about you. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::We are not discussing "self-appointed experts". As has been repeatedly -- repeatedly -- pointed out, these are Pilipinos occupying key professional, academic, and activist roles and who have won wide respect internationally, locally, academically and professionally.
::::::The HRW article is useful as corroboration of the acts in question, how they occurred, and whether or not they are clearly impugnable as State Actions. The answer to all of those questions is clearly "yes" -- as in, "yes, the article clearly affirms that all of these statements are true".
::::::It is the other commentators -- San Juan Jr, Simbulan, etc -- who voice the allegations of U.S. involvement, support, patronage, or responsibility. I feel that their authority and reliability have been properly established; each is in a position that accords them access to relevant data and information, each has long served in a position of trust and authority; each heads up large organizations dedicated to either academic, political, or human rights research or activism; and each is widely published and respected in the Philippines. Is there anything else that is required to establish them as reliable sources?
::::::Finally, it is irrelevant whether or not there may be problems with establishing whether or not the U.S. is utilizing the concept of "Plausible Deniability"; presented here are many reliable sources that allege U.S. involvement/responsibility in the Philippines' current spate of State Terror. BernardL mentioned Plausible Deniability only in response to John Smith's rather off-topic question; Smith has, however, tacitly admitted that when initiating actions of the sort we are discussing the U.S. openly pursues "plausible deniability". For our current discussion that's where the discussion ends; your question was answered: HRW didn't mention U.S. involvement because they didn't see the value in it. Beyond that, there is nothing more any of us can attribute to their motives, and John Smith's attempt to draw further conclusions from BernardL's answer is as bad a case of WP:SYN and WP:OR as i have ever seen.
::::::Having resolved that the question is now simple:
:::::* Do these sources -- San Juan Jr, Simbulan, Fr. Cullen, etc -- qualify as reliable, or not?
::::::If they do, then the section can be included.
::::::I consider them adequate to Wikipedia standards.
::::::And as our interlocutor, Mr John Smith, has observed: in light of U.S. policies regarding "Plausible Deniability" and our current subject, it is often the case that we must be satisfied with merely adequate sources. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

: To clarify, I nowhere indicated that this report suggested that HRW thought the US was sponsoring state terror in the Philippines. It is unclear whether you assumed I thought this or whether you were just asking a question, that's why I stated that the link was not ever intended for the article. Moreover, you should know that I had no hand in writing that section. I rescued it on request because it was blanked without explanation some time ago. It has been suggested for re-insertion. It is not a new section. I have looked at the above objections by Raggz and found them lacking. Regarding evidence for "plausible deniability", and details for the linkages and acts themselves, they are discussed extensively by reliable sources, that's what matters for the purposes of wikipedia. For this thread, such discussion and the additional questions you brought up are straying too much off-topic. But the literature is far more than just "opinion" as you deride it. Does the evidence and documentation stand-up? Well, you can't hide behind an a priori dismissal of views you show no indication of having considered seriously, which is what you are doing.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Bernard, again I never said you did. I asked the question of why the organisation would ignore a point like that.
::So, as I asked where do the sources make reference to verifiable facts? Please give me some examples. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

===Section Break, Philippines AGAIN, pt III===

All of the sources that make the charge of U.S. responsibility or patronage of State Terror make detailed reference to the origins of their factual claims. These are all clearly sourced and footnoted on the sandbox page. Considering their number, i think it might be better if you were to tell us which ones you think are inadequate. At least four of us here have already gone over that section in detail and considered its strengths and weaknesses. We have been discussing it, now, for at least two weeks; all told, the page has been available in sandbox now for almost a month. If you have any objections to it then now would be the time to voice them; you have had more than enough time to evaluate the section and let us know what you do or don't consider appropriate.
It seems most of the editors here have taken the time to review it and consider the ideas therein presented. Unless you are able to give the material similar respect -- by properly sourcing and referencing your objections in adequate detail -- we will be forced to presume that you are not interested enough in the article to bother and will make the decision for inclusion without you. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::''Considering their number, i think it might be better if you were to tell us which ones you think are inadequate.''
:I think you misunderstand. I am talking about "deniability", as a lot of the material is about the Philippines government, not the US directly taking action. But Bernard said the point is that the US was involved/sponsoring in the activity indirectly. So I pointed out that if the US has a credible means of denying involvement, where does the hard, independently verifiable evidence come from?
:I am sure most of the editors have commented, but I know two of them have very similar, polarised political views - I wouldn't put it past the rest to lean the same way, though I do not assume so. If you want to put it in I am not going to stop you. I am here to express alternative views - you can ignore them and do what you want, anytime you want. But you shouldn't dismiss them because I'm not going to buy half a dozen books and devote time to making my own edits (especially when two editors are so hostile at the moment). After all, you wouldn't expect someone who did a peer review to do that, would you? [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 12:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::No, John Smith, i do not misunderstand. As i have pointed out -- repeatedly, and even just above in the passage you (presumably) just read -- the accusations of U.S. involvement come from quite a few reliable sources (last i counted it was something like six or seven on that section). From there, the rest of the citations are precisely the "hard evidence" that you requested.
:::The citations to which i refer clearly make the argument that it is U.S. support, training, and money that is directing, ordering, and enabling the Philippine Government's State Terrorism. The words they use are "patronage", "imperialism", "support", "partnership", and so on. Now, what i would ask you is this: where is the "hard and fast" evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the Taliban? I haven't seen any. I've read a lot of commentary by people who claim they have, but they didn't see it themselves and they didn't quote the relevant texts, testimony, or observations from direct witnesses.
:::The point being that we should not hold a double standard regarding source reliability. To my mind, these Philipino researchers, activists, and academics are clearly reliable sources, commentators with direct involvement in human rights work in the Philippines, professionals and Academics involved in research and exposition about these precise issues, and they have declared that the U.S. is guilty of sponsoring state terror.
:::So let me say it once again, just so we're perfectly clear: the issue is whether or not these sources are reliable. Your digression into the motives of HRW, the U.S. government, and investigative journalism is irrelevant. The current discussion is whether or not these commentators are reliable.
:::Now, regarding their claims they each have provided evidence. That evidence has been footnoted at the bottom of the page and commented upon in the section at question. We would like to know what your sense is of '''that''' evidence.
:::Regarding the hostile editors i can only say that when you are editing on this page you must have a thick skin. :-) The people who come here usually fall into two groups: deletionists and people who want to add material. The numbers are usually skewed slightly towards the deletionists.
:::Consequently, a very delicate protocol has developed for adding material. If you find these editors hostile then i can only say that you might want to give a bit more consideration to the protocols we keep making reference to. For my own part i would be very pleased to see you start up a sand-box and make some suggestions. But until you do i, too, will remain skeptical that you have any ideas for the page go beyond the mere elimination of content.
:::Finally - yes. Absolutely. If you would like to be a valuable contributor to this page then i would suggest you go out and get some books. That is precisely what the peer reviewing process involves: going out and secure relevant material -- books, articles, published research data, whatever -- and studying it before giving an opinion. I see no reason why anyone should expect less here. For my own part, i am an expatriate who lives in Taiwan and is very familiar with International Law, both by virtue of Taiwan's unique status as well as from my professional experiences and personal reading. I have digested quite a bit of recent S.E. Asian history. By virtue of my Amerind ancestry i have also digested quite a bit of U.S. history. By virtue of my early life, study, and work in Texas i have also come to learn quite a bit about Central American history. Even so, i do a lot of research and grunt work on this page. When i present material for inclusion i go around and find whatever i can. So yes, absolutely -- i would expect no less of anyone else who posts here.
:::That said, it is not necessary for you to go out and get a book about, say, the El Salvador human rights abuses. If you truly think the article needs balance -- and are interested in helping -- then i would suggest going out and finding a scholarly treatment of International Law and the concept of State Terror. I am sure that you would, by reading something like that, find material useful for developing this article in the direction you would prefer. Even were the book to neglect the United States' entirely, i am positive that you would find material everyone here would be happy to see included. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Finally, one more VERY IMPORTANT POINT regarding Page Length ==

If one removes all of the formatting for footnotes and citations the page length is reduced to ~65K.

Obviously, relying solely on the length of the page does not reflect the actual content that is being presented. 65K is a a very common page length, especially in some of the more technical and scientific articles.

It is obviously quite premature to be speaking of reducing this page's length.

Is there consensus for removing the "Too long!" tag at the top, now? Or does John Smith still harbor reservations? [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 12:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:I do still harbour reservations. So, no, there is not consensus. At the very least wait until the peer review is concluded. If there are no concerns over length in the peer reviews made, by all means remove it. If there are concerns then keep it. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, and you could easily reduce the size by cutting out some of the citations that are controversial (e.g. from a propaganda mouthpiece/controverisal source) and have other more independent sources on the same point. Also, use the "refname=X" tag instead of repeating sources, "ibid", etc. Though even 65k of text can be considered a lot. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::While the article IS long (I don't see anyone debating that point) simply stating that "It is _too_ long." is not a valid arguement for willy nilly cutting to meet arbitrary size target. What _specifically_ DOES NOT BELONG in this article as being out of the focus of the article or innacurate or redundant? Stone put to sky has made an arguement below that generically provides support for including the material in this article. If you have specific content that you feel should go and valid rationale for reducing the material in the article without hampering its ability to accurately report the issues it is covering or leaving it vulnerable for future deletion nominations, please provide SPECIFIC examples for discussion. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::How can I be proposing to cut material "willy nilly" if I don't make suggestions as what to cut? Though if you honestly can't think of anything yourself, I would suggest seriously cutting down the quotation in the "Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo" sub-section, given the material is apparently all available on the link provided. Similarly the El Savador blockquote could be cropped. There's the additional factor that the latter comes from a copyrighted work, so really direct quotations should be kept to an absolute minimum - use the "........" method if you need to link points. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Thank you again for being specific about where your concerns are focused. Having actual parts of the article to work with will be much more productive for gaining concensus than blanket claims of 'its toooooooo long.' I probably wont have any time tonight to tackle your area of concern, but if you would like, feel free to create a sandbox and start playing with the section to cut the fat and leave the meat and when you have something you think may meet concensus from the other project editors, bring it back for comment. [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Regarding Accusations of POV ==

John Smith writes, above:

::''The article is POV because it mainly just presents one POV - that the US supports and carries out state terrorism. That isn't balanced. I'm not surprised there are references because a lot of people out there hate the US and everything it stands for. Is it surprising that the Cuban government would say all that the article mentions about the US? I am sure there are lots of people out there who don't argue because of a separate agenda, but the wealth of material is hardly indicative of anything in particular.
::''I am here to primarily offer observations. You can ignore them at your will. But there are lots of places material can be chopped and cropped. It is just one thing to do, but it is something that can be done nonetheless. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)}''


I would like to respond that the article represents one ''subject'', and that is how the idea of State Terrorism relates to the activities of the United States and its international activities. The question is, as has been pointed out many times, clearly relevant because of the increasing use of the term "State Terrorism" by the United States itself, because of debates currently taking place amongst experts in the UN and International Law, and finally because the issue itself is not a question of "point of view" or "opinion" but instead of legal complaints and the ''facts'' upon which they are based.

You say, however, that the article is "POV" because it "just presents...[the idea] that the U.S. supports and carries out state terrorism." Well, from a narrow standpoint i can only respond: of course it does. That's its subject matter. But that's not POV; POV is if we editors were to say "The U.S. committed State Terrorism and that is a very evil thing for it to do. The United States is EVIL! It's the GREAT SATAN!"

That's what POV means, in this context, and this article clearly doesn't do that. So it isn't "POV" in that sense.

But from a wider perspective I also agree -- the article would be better if we were allowed to include more commentary so that we could balance out the condemnations and evidence with clarifying examples, comments from international law experts, and so on. Unfortunately, ''it is not the editors currently here who have forced the page's current fashion.'' There is a group of deletionists who -- quite literally -- object to anything on the page that does not make direct reference back to some declaration of U.S. complicity, guilt, or support for State Terrorism. Obviously, if someone insists that a page be reduced to accusations -- and only accusations -- of state terrorism by the United States then the page will wind up looking much as it does now.

Your suggestion that the evidence "could be cropped" is, however, something i disagree with; the evidence here has all been slowly built up ''in response to repeated attempts to delete content.'' That is: someone says "You can't say that the U.S. committed State Terrorism in El Salvador!" To which someone like myself might respond, "Well, we could include an opposing viewpoint, a brief discussion, say, of the bureaucratic chain, the political environment in which the acts took place....?" To which someone else might respond: "Nope. Nothing in this article except accusations of State Terrorism." To which i might say "Well, then, how about this legal scholar that talks about the subtleties of the different ways we can interpret the phrase "State Terrorism", and how it applies to the El Salvador case?" To which another might respond "Does it mention the U.S? If not, then no." Until finally, i -- or another -- is reduced to simply presenting the accusation:

"Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______."

Well, once that's put up the next response is "How do you know the U.S. was responsible for that? Give us a source!"

And then it expands:
"Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______."

Next, it becomes "Well, prove that what happened actually was Terrorism!"

So next it becomes:
"Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______. They performed these acts: _________ __________ __________ ________ and __________."

Then it becomes "How do you know they committed those acts?"

So then it becomes:
"Person/Group/Government X says the United States committed State Terrorism. They say this because government or military agents/proxies/representatives of the U.S. did ______ and _______. These people are agents of the U.S. because ______ and ______ received _____, were ordered by _______, and ________. They performed these acts: _________ __________ __________ ________ and __________."

Next it goes back to the beginning:

"How do you know Person/Group/Government X is reliable in what they claim? Show me more sources!"

And the section grows again.

Do you understand, now, why the page is the way it is?

Therefore, i will once again ask you: start up that sandbox. Show us what your ideas are. We are willing to listen to what you have to say. For my part, however, i am hobbled. Whenever i try to introduce material in that direction it gets deleted. Perhaps your efforts will succeed where mine have failed. I don't know. But i assure you: that is the ''only'' way you are going to make any progress on your vision. [[User:Stone put to sky|Stone put to sky]] ([[User talk:Stone put to sky|talk]]) 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Sky I promise that if I return for a long-spell I will make proper proposals. My intention has been to put an independent view across, as I have not been involved in the editing of this page before. You understand my general views of the page, which was all I wanted to put foward. If I had specific ideas I would put it across. But my point of simplifying/condensing still stands. It isn't about simple deletion, it's about improving things. On the [[Japan]] article we once had a large amount of text that many people considered important. Eventually I took a huge axe to it and said ''"right, if the only way to get FA status is to cut out whatever I can, that is what I will do"''. And, as painful as it was to have to pick and choose, it worked out. The article actually looked better and it became FA. If you want something different here, I won't try to stop you. But honestly it is no bad thing to bite on the bullet and press the delete key.
:As for reversal of changes you make, be bold - it may not happen this time. However, if it does, go straight to mediation and get a discussion going. If that goes wrong you can always go for arbitration to hit those editors on the head that cause trouble rather than use the talk page. I doubt very much you would come out on the wrong side of things. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::People keep alleging 'POV' and yet do not provide any sources for including 'other points of view' within the article. If you have content from reliable sources that would 'bring more balance' to the article, please provide it. But if there ''are not'' any other voices expressing different opinions on the issues covered in the article, it can hardly be considered to violate POV.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::POV problems can be established by people using their common-sense. The lack of any extra immediately accessible contrary views does not mean there is no POV problem. You could argue that you have had difficulty finding opposing information, but that doesn't mean people do not disagree with it. For example, there are various theories about there about global conspiracies. Compare the amount of material out there to "support" it in relation to the amount that says there isn't. A lot of people will simply ignore or laugh at a lot of the ideas that come forward. Similarly here when I've read allegations of "state terrorism" the attitude of the other side is to ignore it, rather than give it credibility by spending time and effort debunking it.
:::Just because there are not hordes of people out there spending time writing books saying stuff like "the US does not support state terrorism" does not mean there isn't material to use to present the other side. People often write articles in support of US foreign policy. Or one could point out where certain notable organisations do not blame the US and attribute the causes elsewhere. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::You keep saying it exists. I am just saying: Show me some. Either point out where the current sources have been presented in a POV fashion or where other voices have presented other views that we can include.[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ok, why have a paragraph on Operation Northwoods when it wasn't even approved? This should be about state terrorism that took place, not theoretical plans that were killed off. Governments often consider "unthinkable" plans so that they can consider every option. To flag up something like this is to suggest "oh wow, look at those Yankies plotting horrible stuff". Also how can it be a "secret plan" if we know about it? It seems like tabloid line-grabber to me. If the reference is in regards to whether it was in the public domain, no such policy ideas ever are. Indeed I can't think of many defence-related plans that are ever made public these days.
:::::And why have three quotes right at the end which are all critical of the US, including one from a guy (Chavez) who has himself been accused of crapping on human rights and his own country's constitution? Aren't their less controverial figures to quote? Why give voice to those who are most divisive? Like the Italian Communist Party's drivel about how the US was stopping them coming to power. There is a modest rebuttal, but to bring it up at all is ridiculous. [[User:John Smith&#39;s|John Smith&#39;s]] ([[User talk:John Smith&#39;s|talk]]) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for finally providing some specifics that will allow actual actions to be taken; rather than generalizations that do not allow anyone to attempt to fix your concerns.
::::::If we can jump right to the quotes section, I am not sure that such a section is appropriate for a WP article at all. Would moving the quotes to WikiQuote be something that would be agreeable to editors?[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom|TheRedPenOfDoom]] ([[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|talk]]) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Some changes to the Japan section ==

I'm going to make some changes to the Japan section. Nothing too major I think, I'll try to cut down some stuff and add in a source I mentioned above that offers a bit of a more balanced point of view. I do agree that this article is a bit long as it is now, but not because it is over 100k, rather there is additional material we probably need to add so it would be useful for us to trim where possible. Also it just does not read well at points which is understandable given the constant battling over content and the numerous editors who have worked on it. I'll try to make some adjustments to the Japan section to improve readability and make it a bit more NPOV. Then I'll come back here and explain what I did and folks can of course object, revert, etc. My goal is to work together to improve one section in a manner that might be duplicated in other sections.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hi Bigtimepeace. Thanks for your changes and improvements to that section. I agreed with all your changes except the last edit that removed some parts from Zinn and Seldon. I can see how it looked like that might be off topic, but actually I think they are not and important to keep as it is a pivotal conceptual point in understanding the basis of the claims visa vis the bombings as acts of State Terror. Specifically, central to this stance by the authors is the claim that the bombs were not primarily attempts to destroy military targets but rather to make a point, to threaten Russia, to have a psychological effect on a political basis beyond Japan, and target civilians. The quote by Zinn of the sociologist make this point about its non-military use, and Zinn relies on this, and is rather central to his concluding and arguing that the bombings being an instance of State Terror. The quote from Seldon does that same thing (he talks about the "Global balance of Terror.") Another part that I find throughout the literature from this conceptual framework is that the act formed the basis of all subsequent acts of state terror involving bombings, specifically the targeting of civilians; this point is also central to the conception that the act constitutes State terrorism, and its significant for the future is a point that I felt was strong enough in the literature that it merited mention here. Lastly, the long Faulk quote, while it is long, I find it as important for NPOV because he talks about the mainstream justifications for the bombings, and answers it from his perspective. Its a big long but the content is rich and says much, and adds to a nice summation recapping the intro for the section. Also, overall the Japan section is one of the smallest, still, in this article. So, if it is ok with you, I'd like to restore these bits, but the rest is definitely a great improvement. Thanks, again.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Hi Gio, I haven't read through your comment yet but will shortly. Let me finish up what I'm doing (won't take much longer) and then I'll come back and summarize and engage with your points.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Of course. Thanks, BTP. And, you have some very good changes to the section, btw.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's done (pardon the length of the comment to follow). I made several edits obviously and tried to use good edit summaries so folks can easily see what was changed and how significant the changes were. First I'll make a general comment and address Giovanni's points and then mention a couple of other things and hopefully we can come to consensus here.

In making some deletions I was seeking to make this section more readable and concise, and also remove material which (while not at all fully off topic) was relatively tangential to the state terrorism issue. I would first point out that while I cut some things we still have ''six'' sources (very good sources for the most part) which accuse the US of state terrorism in this instance. That is more than sufficient I think. Because of challenges in the past there was an (understandable) effort to lard this article with sources. I think we now need to think about cutting down some stuff that duplicates arguments unnecessarily or which is a bit off topic (often times stretching into more general criticisms). Likewise lengthy quotes need to be distilled down to their essence - this is just required for Wikipedia or for academic writing. Historians must always resist the temptation to "fall in love with their sources" and I think the same applies here. A lot of the editors here are quite loquacious (myself included!...exhibit A, this comment!) and we really need to check that impulse. There are all kinds of places where this article can be tightened up and at times that may require us to ditch some sources that are cool but not really necessary.

But on to your points Giovanni. The Kai Erikson quote simply does not accuse the US of state terrorism, and I don't think it adds needed background that has not already been mentioned earlier. The second paragraph already deals with the issue of the targeting of civilians for psychological effect. We could elaborate on the point in that paragraph (maybe add a fragment from Erikson back up there) but I don't think repeating it later is necessary. Also, as evidenced by the "revisionist" school (which I brought in during a recent edit) one can see the bombing as an immoral action done for psychological effect and not view it as state terrorism. I think Erikson's quote (which is second hand anyway) should stay out or be shortened and dropped into the second paragraph at some point.

Similarly I cut part of what Seldon was saying because it simply did not deal with state terrorism. It actually did not really deal with Japan and WWII either but rather with latter aerial bombardments in Asia. As such I think it does not belong here.

Falk's quote has always been too long and a number of people have mentioned this I think. I trimmed it so it dealt only with the state terror accusations. What I cut dealt with US public justification for the attacks (which I don't think we should deal with, it's not really relevant) and a second hand quote from Walzer (already quoted in the section) arguing for diplomacy with which Falk agreed. Again, not really directly relevant.

I don't think any of these passages particularly improve the argument, and arguably I think they distract from it. Remember, readers will come across a long block quote like Falk's and their eyes will glaze over. We should strive to keep the punchiest parts and ditch the rest. I would ask Giovanni and others to consider how important it really is to keep in these relatively tangential sources, and if the readability is not improved as a result of some pruning.

Finally, I added a paragraph toward the end along the lines of something I'd mentioned in an earlier talk page section. One of the valid points from the deletionist camp in the past is that it is hard to find sources that respond to directly to these accusations. This is quite true I think (and those that do respond, such as David Horowitz, are often shoddy sources). So we need to be a bit creative about how we bring in the "oppose" arguments. The way I tried to do it here is by making the point that most historical scholarship on the a-bomb in Japan does not even address the issue of whether or not this is state terrorism. This is undoubtedly true, I think most of you would agree, and is very much worth pointing out. Like it or not, the "a-bomb was state terror" view is clearly a minority one within the scholarship. Simply pointing out this fact strikes me as a useful way to bring in an opposing view, given that there are probably very few sources which bother to say "Richard Falk was wrong when he called this state terrorism."

Wait, I lied about finally. I also changed all of the cites to inline citations. This is something we should work on in general. Formatting cites is annoying, but for anyone who did not know there is a neat tool that helps you do this [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php here]. It speeds up the process quite a bit.

Thoughts?--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:We have agreement about the goal of readability, etc, and agree about your main changes for NPOV. Well done. However, we still disagree on some other matters, so, I'd like other editors to consider both these positions.
:I think that by removing some of the rich background material that is central to the arguments by the various historians used, unintentionally makes it a less interesting section, and thus harder--not easier--to read. So my argument for including the larger quotes is two fold: content and readability, which compliment each other. This is because introducing the conceptual basis for the authors main arguments in this way, makes the point stand out, and thus makes it easier to follow and read as it breaks up the text in the page into easier to see blocks, not just all short sentences. Otherwise, I see too many short sentences all beginning with "''Historian Howard Zinn writes..."; "Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady, writes...";Mark Selden, professor, etc writes..."..."Richard Falk, professor, writes..."''--and they all say pretty much the same thing. This makes it, in my view, a little boring, and lacking in some rich contextual thought that is central to their outlooks. By adding back at least one of the quotes (below), I think we also have better overall form and structure for the section. For example, consider the introduction statement, that you mention. You are right you leave in the important ''"most of the arguments that label the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki state terrorism center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal,"'' in the intro, but herein lies the rich heart of the pov, and instead of just saying this once in the intro, why not allow these scholars to voice this POV more fully, to wrap up the section, by repeating the main thesis/intro? I think it does add value, understanding of the subject, but also makes for more interesting reading, and thus easier to read. I don't agree that the longer quote causes a readers eyes to glaze over. On the contrary, several choppy sentences not really saying anything new, arguably, does this. With the quotes, we get to hear the source himself speak, and it is gripping. So the disagreement here to be settled is that is it distracting from the main argument and subject? As a compromise, how about if I say leave the Professor Selden quote about, that talks about the "over the next half century...beginning in Japan..." I can agree this one not too relevant, as it is more arial bombardments in Asia. So this quote and stay out. However, I think the quote by [[sociologist]] Kai Erikson, that Howard Zinn grasps on to in his writing on the subject is at the heart of the issue and speaks with passion on the subject (which is why Zinn uses it to support his argument), and this is directly relevant to the issue. The quote is:

{{cquote|''"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?"''}}

:I feel this moral indictment makes a powerful point and is at the heart of the POV we are trying to represent here, and why Zinn quotes him. The other longer quote you feel is simply too long, I'm also willing to compromise on, and leave it to the shortened version you have left. However, I would prefer the longer version for the same reasons I explained above as it provides a great amount of contextual thought and background information about the arguments, and thus enriches the section/subject on it.
:But regardless, bravo, on your other changes (most of them) that you have made. I'm sure we can reach a compromise here, with a re-inclusion of the Erikson quote that Zinn uses for his argument. Thanks.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:P.S. There was one other change that I'd like to see. I think the word "revisionist" and "traditionalist" is over used. We should introduce the term and using it once I think is adequate (maybe link to some article on it as a reader might confuse this legitimate type of revisionist school (used in academia), with the illegitimate "revisionists" that actually is more in the popular/lay language but carries different and pejorative meaning.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::I think BigT did a very nice job. However what I think is different and interesting about the Kai Erikson quote is that it is not just a statement, it contains a very provocative rhetorical moral question that prompts us to think about the psychologies that war and conflict produce. I think it is an asset.[[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 02:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:::(ec with Bernard, but the following addresses his point too) Taking your last point first Giovanni, I'm not sure if you are saying that the revisionist/traditionalist labels are overused in general in our discourse or just in the article. I'm guessing the former. These terms can be confusing but they are the exact terms used within the a-bomb historiography (I'm drawing the terms from the Walker article I cited - it's definitely the dominant terminology). What's confusing generally is that the terms are used differently in different fields. So when it comes to Hiroshima "revisionists" are critics of American foreign policy (this label is also often applied more generally to the school of diplomatic history associated with [[William Appleman Williams]] and his students). But in discussing Vietnam the "revisionists" are those who defend the war and blame Congress for bailing out since the "traditional" view among scholars (for now and probably for quite some time) is that the war was a disaster. I did explain the distinction for the purposes of the drop-the-bomb debate but we could tweak the wording. I don't really see how we can use other terms and don't think we should explain that the terms mean different things in different fields so long as readers understand what the term means for the Japan a-bomb debate.

:::As to the Erikson quote, what if we put a slightly shortened version at the end of the second paragraph of the section? We could adjust the wording there a bit to transition perhaps, but I think this passage
::::"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration."
:::would be useful at the end of that paragraph as a specific example of what that paragraph is talking about more generally - i.e. that critics who accuse the US of state terrorism usually base this on the argument that the attacks were not necessary and were intended to make a point. Then what would follow would be several paragraphs of specific accusations about state terrorism (running the Zinn and Walzer quotes together was good as were a couple of other efforts to consolidate paragraphs). I just don't think the Erikson quote belongs amidst specific accusations of state terrorism but I'm fine with it earlier. Would that work?

:::Finally specifically to Giovanni and on a more trivial level, would you be willing to do without the italics? I think they are distracting and in terms of manual-of-style issues [[WP:ITALICS]] specifically notes that "italics are used for emphasis, but sparingly." I think it can often be useful to italicize particular words but not whole sentences (which is why I'd removed them before) so I'm wondering if you'd mind not italicizing whole phrases as a general rule. I think the importance of individual quotes will be evident even without them.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Hi BTP, yes, I'm ok with taking out the italics. I'm also ok with your idea of where to place the Erikson quote, however, I agree with Bernard that the provocative moral rhetorical question he asks is worthy of inclusion as it forces the reader to confront the issue in a way that I think is very effective. This makes the text interesting, and it does encapsulate the thinking of those who espouse this perspective. I'ts significant that Zinn gives him a full voice on the question as a way to argue that it was an act of state terror.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 03:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


{{DEFAULTSORT:Poe, Virginia}}
== Quick question on archiving talk ==
[[Category:1822 births]]
[[Category:1847 deaths]]
[[Category:Burials at Westminster Hall and Burying Ground]]
[[Category:Deaths by tuberculosis]]
[[Category:Edgar Allan Poe]]


[[pt:Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe]]
Forget article length, the talk page is ''five times'' that length! The bot that is archiving this page is currently set to archive only those discussion threads that have gone stale for 14 days. There is a lot of stuff that will be sitting here for awhile which would probably be best moved into the archive asap. Any objections to changing the settings for now so that the bot archives every 10 days, or better yet 7? If something gets archived which should not have we can always move it back, and once the page gets cleared up a bit maybe we can move it back to 14 days if folks so desire. If a few people are okay with this I'll change the settings at the top of the page. 14 days just seems like a really long time for a page that is so active right now and which has a ton of threads that really went nowhere.--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm cool with that- by all means be bold ;). Is all of the old material that sticks at the top, such as the Japan and Opposing Views sandboxes really necessary? [[User:BernardL|BernardL]] ([[User talk:BernardL|talk]]) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:47, 3 March 2008

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe
Virginia Poe, image created after her death.
BornAugust 22, 1822
DiedJanuary 30, 1847(1847-01-30) (aged 24)
SpouseEdgar Allan Poe

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe (August 22, 1822January 30, 1847), born Virginia Eliza Clemm, was the wife of Edgar Allan Poe. The couple were first-cousins and married when Virginia was only 13 and Poe was 27.

The two lived together off and on along with other family members for several years before their marriage. A few years after their wedding, Poe was involved in a substantial scandal involving Frances Sargent Osgood and Elizabeth F. Ellet. The scandal involved rumors about alleged amorous improprieties on her husband's part. She had previously become sick with tuberculosis. She struggled with this illness for several years before her death in January 1847 at age 24. The scandal still on her mind, on her deathbed she claimed that Ellet was her murderer.

Virginia's disease and eventual death had a substantial impact on her husband. In his poetry and prose, dying young women appear as a frequent motif, possibly inspired by Virginia.

Biography

Early life

Poe family tree

Virginia Eliza Clemm was born on August 22, 1822[1] and named after an older sister who died as an infant[2] only ten days earlier.[1] Her father William Clemm, Jr. was a hardware merchant in Baltimore.[3] He had married Maria Poe, Virginia's mother, as a second wife in July 12, 1817,[4] after the death of his first wife, Maria's first cousin Harriet.[5] He had five children from his previous marriage and had three with Maria.[3] After his death in 1826, he left very little to the family[6] and relatives offered no financial support because they had opposed the marriage.[3] Maria supported the family as best she could by sewing, taking in borders, and with an annual $240 pension granted to her mother Elizabeth Cairnes, who was paralyzed and bedridden.[6] Elizabeth received this pension on behalf of her late husband, "General" David Poe, a former quartermaster in Maryland who had loaned money to the state.[7]

Edgar Poe first met his first-cousin Virginia in August 1829, four months after his discharge from the Army. She was seven at the time.[8] In 1832, the family — made up of Elizabeth, Maria, Virginia, Virginia's brother Henry, and Poe's older brother William Henry Leonard[8] — were able to use Elizabeth's pension to rent a home at what was then 3 Amity Street in Baltimore.[9] William Henry Leonard died on August 1, 1831.[10] Poe joined the household in 1833[11] and smitten by a neighbor named Mary Devereaux. The young Virginia served as a messenger between the two, at one point retrieving a lock of Devereaux's hair as a gift to Poe.[12] Elizabeth Cairnes Poe died on July 7, 1835, effectively ending the family's income and making their financial situation even more dire.[13] Henry died around this time, sometime before 1836, leaving Virginia as Maria Clemm's only surviving child.[14]

Poe left the destitute family behind and moved to Richmond, Virginia, taking a job at the Southern Literary Messenger in August 1835.[15] While away from Baltimore, another cousin, Neilson Poe, the husband of Virginia's half-sister Josephine Clemm,[16] heard Edgar was considering marrying Virginia. He offered to take her and have her educated. His offer was an attempt at preventing her marriage to Edgar at such a young age, though he suggested the option be reconsidered later.[17] Edgar called Neilson, the owner of a newspaper in Baltimore, Maryland, his "bitterest enemy" and interpreted his cousin's actions as an attempt to breaking his connection with Virginia.[18] On August 29, 1835,[18] Edgar wrote an emotional letter to Maria, saying he was "blinded with tears while writing",[16] pleading that she allow Virginia to make her own decision.[19] Encouraged by his employment at the Southern Literary Messenger, Poe offered to provide financially for Maria, Virginia and Henry if they moved to Richmond.[20]

Marriage

Virginia and Edgar's marriage certificate

Marriage plans were confirmed and Poe returned to Baltimore to file for a marriage license on September 22, 1835. They may have quietly gotten married as well, though accounts are unclear.[21] Their only public ceremony was in Richmond on May 16, 1836, when they were married by a Presbyterian minister named Rev. Amasa Converse.[22] Edgar was 27 and Virginia was 13, though the two listed her age as 21.[22] This marriage bond was filed in Richmond and included an affidavit from Thomas W. Cleland confirming her alleged age.[23] The ceremony was held in the evening at the home of a Mrs. James Yarrington,[24] the owner of the boarding house in which Edgar, Virginia, and Virginia's mother Maria Clemm were staying.[25] Yarrington helped Maria Clemm bake the wedding cake and prepared a wedding meal.[26] The couple had a short honeymoon in Petersburg, Virginia.[24]

Debate has raged regarding how unusual this pairing was based on their age and blood relationship. Noted Poe biographer Arthur Hobson Quinn says it was not particularly unusual, nor was Edgar's nickname of "Sissy" or "Sis".[27] Another Poe biographer, Kenneth Silverman, says that though their first-cousin marriage was not unusual, her young age was.[21] It has been suggested that Clemm and Poe had a brother–sister relationship.[28] Scholars, including Marie Bonaparte, have read many of Poe's works as autobiographical and have concluded that Virginia died a virgin[29] because she and her husband never consummated their marriage,[30] especially if assuming Virginia is the title character in the poem "Annabel Lee," a "maiden... by the name of Annabel Lee."[29] Poe biographer Joseph Wood Krutch suggested that Poe did not need women "in the way that normal men need them", but only as a source of inspiration and care.[31] Friends of Poe suggested that they did not share a bed for at least the first two years of their marriage but, when she turned 16, began a "normal" married life until her illness.[32]

Virginia and Edgar were by all accounts a happy and devoted couple. Poe's one-time employer George Rex Graham wrote of their relationship: "His love for his wife was a sort of rapturous worship of the spirit of beauty."[33] She, in turn, by many contemporary accounts, nearly idolized her husband[34] and showed her love in an acrostic poem she composed, dated February 14, 1846:

Ever with thee I wish to roam -
Dearest my life is thine.
Give me a cottage for my home
And a rich old cypress vine,
Removed from the world with its sin and care
And the tattling of many tongues.
Love alone shall guide us when we are there -
Love shall heal my weakened lungs;
And Oh, the tranquil hours we'll spend,
Never wishing that others may see!
Perfect ease we'll enjoy, without thinking to lend
Ourselves to the world and its glee -
Ever peaceful and blissful we'll be.[35]

Osgood/Ellet scandal

The "tattling of many tongues" in Virginia's Valentine poem was a reference to actual incidents.[36] Poe had begun a flirtation with Frances Sargent Osgood, a married 34-year old poet.[37] Virginia was aware of their friendship and may have encouraged it.[38] She often invited Osgood to visit them at home, imagining that she had a "restraining" effect on her husband, who had made a promise to "give up the use of stimulants" and was never drunk in her presence.[39]

At the same time, another poet, Elizabeth F. Ellet, became enamored with Poe and became jealous of Osgood.[38] Though, in a letter to Sarah Helen Whitman, he called her love for him "loathsome" and he "could do nothing but repel [it] with scorn", he printed many of her poems to him in the Broadway Journal while he was its editor.[40] Ellet was known for being meddlesome and vindictive[41] and, while visiting the Poe household in late January 1846, she saw one of Osgood's personal letters to Poe.[42] According to Ellet, Virginia pointed out "fearful paragraphs" in Osgood's letter.[43] Ellet contacted Osgood and suggested she should be fearful of her indiscretions and ask Poe to return her letters.[42] motivated either by jealousy or by a desire to cause scandal.[43] On her behalf, Osgood sent Margaret Fuller and Anne Lynch Botta to ask Poe to return her letters. Angered by their interference, Poe called them "Busy-bodies" and suggested that Ellet had better "look after her own letters", suggesting indiscretion on her part.[44] One such letter includes the imperfect German Ich habe einen Brief fur Sie—wollen Sie gefalligst heute lassen?[45] One part translates to "Call for it at her residence this evening", a phrase presumably meant to be seductive, though Poe ignored it or did not understand it.[46] He then gathered up these letters from Ellet and left them at her house.[42]

Though these letters had already been returned to her, Ellet asked her brother "to demand of me the letters".[44] Her brother, Colonel William Lummis did not believe that Poe had already returned them and threatened to kill him. In order to defend himself, Poe requested a pistol from Thomas Dunn English.[42] English, a friend of Poe and minor writer who was a trained doctor and lawyer, did not believe that Poe had already returned the letters and, in fact, believed they had never existed.[44] The easiest way out of the predicament, he said, "was a retraction of unfounded charges."[47] Angered at being called a liar, Poe pushed English into a fistfight. Poe claimed he was triumphant in the fight, though English claimed otherwise, but it is believed that Poe's face was badly cut by one of English's rings.[42] In Poe's version, he said, "I gave E. a flogging which he will remember to the day of his death." Either way, the fight further sparked gossip over the Osgood affair.[48]

Osgood's husband stepped in and threatened to sue Ellet unless she formally apologized for what she was implying. She retracted her statements in a letter to Osgood saying, "The letter shown me by Mrs Poe must have been a forgery created by Poe himself.[49] She put all the blame on Poe, suggesting the incident was because Poe was "intemperate and subject to acts of lunacy."[50] Ellet spread the rumor of Poe's insanity, which was taken up by other enemies of Poe and reported in newspapers. The St. Louis Reveille reported: "A rumor is in circulation in New York, to the effect that Mr. Edgar A. Poe, the poet and author, has been deranged, and his friends are about to place him under the charge of Dr. Brigham of the Insane Retreat at Utica."[51] The scandal eventually died down when Osgood reunited with her husband.[50] Virginia, however, had been very affected by the scandal. Anonymous letters about the alleged indiscretions of her husband were sent to Virginia as early as July 1845. It is presumed that Ellet was involved with these letters and Virginia was so disturbed by them that she allegedly declared on her deathbed that "Mrs. E. had been her murderer."[52]

Illness

Virginia Poe's bedroom at the Poe Cottage in the Bronx, New York, where she died.

Virginia had developed tuberculosis, first seen in an incident some time in the middle of January 1842. While singing and playing the piano, Virginia began to bleed from the mouth, though Poe said she merely "ruptured a blood-vessel".[53] Her health declined and she became an invalid, which drove Edgar into a deep depression, especially as she occasionally showed signs of improvement. In a letter to friend John Ingram, Edgar described his resulting mental state:

"Each time I felt all the agonies of her death—and at each accession of the disorder I loved her more dearly & clung to her life with more desperate pertinacity. But I am constitutionally sensitive—nervous in a very unusual degree. I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity."[54]

Her condition may have been what prompted the Poe family to move in the hopes of finding a healthier environment for her. They moved several times throughout Philadelphia in the early 1840s, their last home in that city now preserved as the Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site in Spring Garden.[55]

In May 1846, the family (Edgar, Virginia, and her mother, Maria) moved to a small cottage in Fordham, New York, about fourteen miles outside the city.[56] In the only surviving letter from Poe to Virginia, dated June 12, 1846, he urged her to remain optimistic: "Keep up your heart in all hopelessness, and trust yet a little longer." In his recent loss of the Broadway Journal, the only magazine Poe ever owned, he said, "I should have lost my courage but for you—my darling little wife you are my greatest and only stimulus now to battle with this uncongenial, unsatisfactory and ungrateful life."[57] By November of that year, her condition was hopeless.[58] Her symptoms included irregular appetite, flushed cheeks, unstable pulse, night sweats, high fever, sudden chills, shortness of breath, chest pains, coughing and spitting up blood.[57]

Nathaniel Parker Willis, a friend of Poe's and an influential editor, along with others published an announcement on December 30, 1846, requesting help for the family, though his facts were not entirely correct:[59]

Illness of Edgar A. Poe. —We regret to learn that this gentleman and his wife are both dangerously ill with the consumption, and that the hand of misfortune lies heavily on their temporal affairs. We are sorry to mention the fact that they are so far reduced as to be barely able to obtain the necessaries of life. That is, indeed, a hard lot, and we do hope that the friends and admirers of Mr. Poe will come promptly to his assistance in his bitterest hour of need.[60]

Willis, who had not corresponded with Poe for two years and had since lost his own wife, was one of his greatest supporters in this period. He sent Poe and his wife an inspirational Christmas book, The Marriage Ring; or How to Make a Home Happy.[60]

The announcement was similar to one made for Poe's mother Eliza Poe during her last stages of tuberculosis.[59] Other newspapers picked up on the announcement, including this one: "Great God! ...is it possible, that the literary people of the Union, will let poor Poe perish by starvation and lean faced beggary in New York? For so we are led to believe, from frequent notices in the papers, stating that Poe and his wife are both down upon a bed of misery, death, and disease, with not a ducat in the world.[61] The Saturday Evening Post asserted that Virginia was in a hopeless condition and that Poe had no friends. "It is said that Edgar A. Poe is lying dangerously with brain fever, and that his wife is in the last stages of consumption—they are without money and without friends."[62] Even Hiram Fuller, who Poe had previously sued for libel, attempted to garner support for Poe and his wife in the New York Mirror. "We, whom he has quarrelled with, will take the lead", he wrote.[60]

Virginia was tended to by 25-year old Marie Louise Shew. Shew knew medical care from her father, a doctor. She provided Virginia with a comforter as her only other cover was Edgar's old military cloak.[63]

Death

Memorial marker to Virginia Clemm, Maria Clemm, and Edgar Allan Poe in Baltimore, Maryland

On January 29, 1847, Poe wrote to Marie Louise Shew: "My poor Virginia still lives, although failing fast and now suffering much pain."[64] Virginia died the next day, January 30, 1847,[65] after five years of illness. Shew helped in organizing her funeral, even purchasing her coffin. Shew may have also painted the only image of Virginia, a water color done after her death.[66] Her death was announced in several newspapers. The New York Daily Tribune and the Herald on February 1, 1847 carried the simple obituary: "On Saturday, the 30th ult., of pulmonary consumption, in the 25th year of her age, VIRGINIA ELIZA, wife of EDGAR A. POE."[63] Though now buried at Westminster Hall and Burying Ground, Virginia was originally buried in a vault owned by the Valentine family, owners of the Fordham cottage, on the day of her funeral[66] February 2, 1847[64]

In 1875, the same year Edgar was reburied, the cemetery in which she lay was destroyed and her remains were almost forgotten. An early Poe biographer, William Gill, gathered her bones and stored them in a box he hid under his bed.[67] Gill's story was reported in the Boston Herald twenty-seven years after the event. Gill says that he had visited the Fordham cemetery in 1883 at exactly the moment that the sexton Dennis Valentine held Virginia's bones in his shovel, ready to throw them away as unclaimed. Gill took the remains and corresponded with Neilson Poe and John Prentiss Poe in Baltimore, and arranged to bring the box down to be laid on Edgar's left side in a small bronze casket. Virginia's remains were finally buried with her husband's in 1885 on January 19 — the seventy-sixth anniversary of her husband's birth and nearly ten years after his current monument was erected. The same man who served as sexton during Edgar's original burial and his exhumations and reburials was also present at the rites which brought his body to rest with Virginia and Virginia's mother Maria Clemm.[68]

Appearance

Only one image of Virginia is known to exist, painted based on her corpse.[64] Accounts of Virginia's appearance vary. She had dark hair and violet eyes with skin so pale it was described as "pure white",[69] causing a "bad complexion that spoiled her looks".[2] One visitor to the Poe family noted, "the rose-tint upon her cheek was too bright", possibly a symptom of her illness.[70] Another visitor in Fordham wrote, "Mrs. Poe looked very young; she had large black eyes, and a pearly whiteness of complexion, which was a perfect pallor. Her pale face, her brilliant eyes, and her raven hair gave her an unearthly look."[71] That unearthly look was mentioned by others who suggested that made her look not quite human.[72] William Gowans, who once lodged with the family, described Virginia as a woman of "matchless beauty and loveliness, her eye could match that of any houri, and her face defy the genius of a Canova to imitate".[73] She may have been a little plump[72] with a slight double chin. In her watercolor portrait, her eyes are shown to be hazel.[64] Many contemporary accounts as well as modern biographers remark on her child-like appearance even in the last years of her life.[64][72][8]

Impact and influence on Poe

Virginia's death had a strong impact on Poe. After her death Poe was deeply saddened for several months. A friend said of him, "the loss of his wife was a sad blow to him. He did not seem to care, after she was gone, whether he lived an hour, a day, a week or a year; she was his all."[74] A year after her death, he had written to a friend that he had experience the greatest evil a man can experience when, he said, "a wife, whom I loved as no man ever loved before" had gotten sick.[32] While she was struggling to recover, Poe turned to alcohol after abstaining for quite some time. How often and how much he drank is a controversial issue, debated from Poe's lifetime to more modern biographers.[55][75] Poe referred to it as his own illness and found the cure to it "in the death of my wife. This I can & do endure as becomes a man—it was the horrible never-ending oscillation between hope & despair which I could not longer have endured without the total loss of reason."[76]

Poe pursued several women after Virginia's death, including Nancy Richmond of Lowell, Massachusetts, Sarah Helen Whitman of Providence, Rhode Island, and childhood sweetheart Sarah Elmira Royster in Richmond. Even so, Frances Osgood, who Poe also attempted to woo, believed "that she [Virginia] was the only woman whom he ever loved."[77]

References in literature

Many of Poe's works are interpreted as being partially autobiographical and much of his work is believed to reflect Virginia's long struggle with tuberculosis and eventual death. The most discussed example is "Annabel Lee". The poem, which depicts a dead young bride and her mourning lover, is often assumed to have been inspired by Virginia, though other women in Poe's life are potential candidates including Frances Sargent Osgood[78] and Sarah Helen Whitman.[79] A similar poem, "Ulalume", is also believed to be a memorial tribute to Virginia.[80]

Virginia is also seen in in Poe's prose. The short story "Eleonora" (1842) — which features a narrator preparing to marry his cousin, with whom he lives alongside her mother — may also reference Virginia's illness. When Poe wrote it, she had just begun to show signs of her illness.[81] Shortly after, the couple moved to New York City by boat and Poe published "The Oblong Box" (1844). The story, which shows a man mourning over his dead young wife while transporting her corpse by boat, seems to suggest Poe's feelings over Virginia's impending death. As the ship sinks, the husband would rather die than be separated from his wife's corpse.[82] The short story "Ligeia", with the slow, lingering death of its title character, may also be inspired by Virginia.[83] After her death, Poe also edited his first published story, "Metzengerstein", to remove the narrator's line, "I would wish all I love to perish of that gentle disease."[64] Poe's supposed insanity during her illness may also be reflected in his first-person narratives "The Tell-Tale Heart", "The Black Cat", and "The Cask of Amontillado".[32]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b Quinn, 17
  2. ^ a b Silverman, 82
  3. ^ a b c Silverman 81
  4. ^ Quinn, 726
  5. ^ Meyers, 59
  6. ^ a b Meyers, 60
  7. ^ Quinn, 256
  8. ^ a b c Sova, 52
  9. ^ Haas, Irvin. Historic Homes of American Authors. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press, 1991. ISBN 0891331808. p. 78
  10. ^ Quinn, 187–188
  11. ^ Silverman, 96
  12. ^ Sova, 67
  13. ^ Quinn, 218
  14. ^ Silverman, 323
  15. ^ Sova, 225
  16. ^ a b Quinn, 219
  17. ^ Silverman, 104
  18. ^ a b Meyers, 72
  19. ^ Silverman, 105
  20. ^ Meyers, 74
  21. ^ a b Silverman, 107
  22. ^ a b Meyers, 85
  23. ^ Quinn, 252
  24. ^ a b Quinn, 254
  25. ^ Quinn, 230
  26. ^ Sova, 263
  27. ^ Hoffman, 26
  28. ^ Krutch, 52
  29. ^ a b Hoffman, 27
  30. ^ Richard, Claude and Jean-Marie Bonnet, "Raising the Wind; or, French Editions of the Works of Edgar Allan Poe," Poe Newsletter, vol. I, No. 1, April 1968, p. 12.
  31. ^ Krutch, 54
  32. ^ a b c Sova, 53
  33. ^ Oberholtzer, 299
  34. ^ Hoffman, 318
  35. ^ Quinn, 497
  36. ^ Moss, 214
  37. ^ Silverman, 280
  38. ^ a b Meyers, 190
  39. ^ Silverman, 287
  40. ^ Moss, 212
  41. ^ Silverman, 288
  42. ^ a b c d e Meyers, 191
  43. ^ a b Moss, 213
  44. ^ a b c Silverman, 290
  45. ^ Moss, 219
  46. ^ Silverman, 289
  47. ^ Moss, 220
  48. ^ Silverman, 291
  49. ^ Moss, 215
  50. ^ a b Silverman, 292
  51. ^ Meyers, 192
  52. ^ Moss, 213–214
  53. ^ Silverman, 179
  54. ^ Meyers, 208
  55. ^ a b Silverman, 183
  56. ^ Meyers, 322
  57. ^ a b Meyers, 203
  58. ^ Silverman, 323
  59. ^ a b Meyers, 202
  60. ^ a b c Silverman, 324
  61. ^ Silverman, 324
  62. ^ Meyers, 203
  63. ^ a b Silverman, 326
  64. ^ a b c d e f Meyers, 206
  65. ^ Krutch, 169
  66. ^ a b Silverman, 327
  67. ^ Meyers, 263
  68. ^ Miller, John C. "The Exhumations and Reburials of Edgar and Virginia Poe and Mrs. Clemm," from Poe Studies, vol. VII, no. 2, December 1974, p. 47
  69. ^ Krutch, 55–56
  70. ^ Silverman, 182
  71. ^ Meyers, 204
  72. ^ a b c Krutch, 56
  73. ^ Meyers, 92–93
  74. ^ Meyers, 207
  75. ^ Thomas Poulter. "Edgar Allan Poe and Alcohol". Retrieved 2008-03-02.
  76. ^ Moss, 233
  77. ^ Krutch, 57
  78. ^ Meyers, 244
  79. ^ Sova, 12
  80. ^ Meyers, 211
  81. ^ Sova, 78
  82. ^ Silverman, 228–229
  83. ^ Hoffman, 255–256

References

  • Hoffman, Daniel. Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe. Louisiana State University Press, 1972. ISBN 0684193701.
  • Moss, Sidney P. Poe's Literary Battles: The Critic in the Context of His Literary Milieu. Southern Illinois University Press, 1969.
  • Meyers, Jeffrey. Edgar Allan Poe: His Life and Legacy. Cooper Square Press, 1992. ISBN 0684193701.
  • Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. The Literary History of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., 1906. ISBN 1932109455.
  • Quinn, Arthur Hobson. Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biobraphy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. ISBN 0801857309
  • Silverman, Kenneth. Edgar A. Poe: Mournful and Never-ending Remembrance. Harper Perennial, 1991. ISBN 0060923318.

External links


Template:Persondata