Talk:United States and state terrorism

Opposing views

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 Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies.

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.

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.[1][2][3] 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.[4][5] 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.[6][7]

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.[8] 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.

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.[9]. The US Intelligence Oversight Board 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.

Suggestions

Great work on "Opposing Views" section! I suggest some minor, rewordings along the same lines.

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.

Could be replaced with:

Studies have found that US media focus on countries where the US has an interest,[10] [11] 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.

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?

Also, I would suggest a minor rewording in another paragraph

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.[12] 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.

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.[13].

Could be replaced with

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,[14] and perpetrators are prosecuted. Niall Ferguson and others 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.[15]

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.

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.

Counter Arguments

Critics of these arguments claim that the US does not take strong enough action to limit human rights violations by US-supported governments. 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. 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.

Japan

Main article: 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 attacks 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.

The role of the bombings in 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."

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. They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.

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."[16]

Zinn quoted the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“ 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."

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."[17] 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." [18]

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:

“ 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.

Edits

1. Remove the uncited paragraph in the lead.

2. Add El Salvador

3. Add Japan

4. Replace Opposing views

5. Rename the article to State terrorism by the United States

Original Research Violations

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:

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.

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?

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.

"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. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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 consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted..." Fine, offer one example please? Raggz (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We have tact consensus on this point. Raggz (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

the question of reliable sources

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.

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.

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. 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"? Raggz (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have tacit consensus on this point. 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. 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.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? Raggz (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. Raggz (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This is all that you needed to add to this section then? 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? 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.[[19]]. The president of the National Lawyer's Guild, Michael Avery has specifically covered the topic of Luis Posada Carriles in the recording here [[20]]. 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.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. 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? Raggz (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With an absence of comment, tacit consensus is presumed. 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". Wayne (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? 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. 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 NPOV? 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. Raggz (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already replied to this challenge below. 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. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. 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? // 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. 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. 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 Consensus is a good thing. If your claims are improperly oversimplified, merely correct this.

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? 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. 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. 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? 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? 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, no more magical consensus. She used it, I liked it, but you don't, so fine. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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). 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? Raggz (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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 [[21]]

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.... 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? 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.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. 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? 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?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. 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.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? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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? Raggz (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this should stay. Please see the statement in the article that this is supporting. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Raggz (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we most certainly do not. 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 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? 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. 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? Raggz (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

Not sure who posted this, but an RFC should take the form of a specific question with specific answers. This isn't even a vague question -- it's just a comment without context, made by an anonymous poster, and apparently serving no purpose. If comments really are being requested, it might be better for the poster in question -- whoever he (she? i doubt it) is -- to take a little bit of time and figure out what it is they're asking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that our visitors consider answering two questions: (1) is this article generally a mess requiring serious work (or merge with state terrorism) and (2) should this article specifically define what it means by terrorism when it discusses an allegation of terrorism?. I ask BernardL to list an RfC question or two as well if there are other important ones I missed. Raggz (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) No, this article has a long and heated history, and most of the problems have been pounded out with sweat and blood. It looks a lot better to me now than it did a few years ago. (2) No, because different sources will define the term differently. Wikipedia can not fix a definition that is considered superior to all other definitions. That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. We have to use the definitions that the sources use. MilesAgain (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Article a Mess?

I hope you don't mind being moved out of the RfC section, if you want to, just move your text back. Raggz (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Yes, the article is a mess. But that is simply because there exists a group of people on Wikipedia who would like to see the page deleted entirely. Rational and good-faith attempts to work with these people to develop more professional and balanced commentary have been met by mass deletions of material and the elimination of widely acknowledged facts and sources. Consequently, the page has now become a compendium of what it is these people can not delete. It will, unfortunately, remain that way until the good-faith editors who are currently working here -- myself among them -- feel comfortable enough to undertake a restructuring of the article. Until that time comes, i suggest you work with us in a more productive manner than you have have been. Up until now, you have simply popped on to the page and started complaining about it's "point of view". What i suspect, however, is that this subject is, by its very nature, one that you abhor and would like to see swept under the rug. Until such time as you can demonstrate that you have some interest above and beyond merrely deleting the page, i am afraid that your efforts here at "cooperation" will confront a great deal of inertia.Stone put to sky (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• (2) It is impossible to specifically define what terrorism means, just the same way as it is impossible to specifically define what "the meaning of life", "love", or "patriotism" means. Nevertheless, as you can see there are three pages devoted to them. In point of fact, the idea of "state terrorism" and how it applies to other countries is much more clearly defined than any of these three. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a mess. But that is simply because there exists a group of people on Wikipedia who would like to see the page deleted entirely." I tend to agree with these people. I do understand that the Article cannot develop without Consensus, and I find that argument persuasive. I might work with you if and when the article survives, but only if the title and topic gets tweaked again into an actual useable structure. I do not believe that an article ONLY about allegations has any place in ANY encyclopedia. You should start thinking about shifting the focus, or you will end up defending an article that is limited to allegations and cannot discuss actual facts. In the meantime, while advocating termination of an article defined so that it may not discuss facts, I will work with you in good faith to help make a real article.

I think those are excellent ideas. People who understand the history of this page know that it was originally titled "State Terrorism by the United States", but unfortunately the title was watered down by insincere editors. That is obviously the title the article should be held under. Unfortunately, even under that title most of the current facts and content will remain; while i myself would be perfectly happy to re-work the material to be less an indictment of the U.S. and more of an academic exploration, the unfortunate fact is that the cabal of vandals who have targeted this page will, in all likelihood, not allow it. We can make a go at it, but of course the first step would be returning the title to its original state: State Terrorism by the United States. I think most people here support such a move, and i thank you for introducing it. Let's give it a day and introduce an RfC, o.k? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i am afraid that your efforts here at "cooperation" will confront a great deal of inertia. We can deal with inertia. There is nothing in Five pillars that favors inertia. Don't be a mere stone, why not fly into the sky? I won't help you keep a really bad article, but I will help with the next step. What is it that you really want? Raggz (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained what i "really" want: a proper academic treatment of the subject. Unfortunately, up until now your behavior and actions have done little to reassure me that you want the same thing. As i have repeatedly pointed out to you, asking the current group of people present to acquiesce to your mass of deletions will not work: we won't. Similarly, complaining that the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV will not work, either; there have been many people who were much more vicious and intransigent than you who have come by this page saying the same thing, and after 7 different nominations for deletion the page has remained. The last three discussions, i think, didn't even last longer than a single day.

The Wikipedia community has determined that this particular page does meet its standards and is NPOV. Now, i would agree with you that, in a perfect world where we all met Encyclopedia Britannica standards, the article would be much different. But i am forced to remind you once more: the reason the article looks as it currently does is because of people coming in and making massive deletions without contributing anything material to the structure of the page. Thus:

If you would like us to take your suggestions seriously, then i suggest you start making contributions to the page that go beyond demands to delete material. We would love to see this page re-worked into something less inflammatory. However, until its detractors becomme intellectually mature enough to engage in a mutual process of exploration their efforts will simply result in a further expansion of the already hundreds of sources and pages of content that currently exist. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

In this section [[22]], 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.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.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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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). 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? 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. 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:

“ 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. ”

Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the US government and their proxies in their execution of 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." Keith Windschuttle accuses Chomsky of using evidence that was "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented" 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} 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. 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 bystate terrorism, a summary of Chomsky's definition. 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"? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Too Long?

The Article is recommended to be edited to not be so lengthy.

The article is just fine the way it is. In fact, we are going to increase its length. None of the relevant information that is currently on the page will disappear. If you would like to make an alternative suggestion to deletion, then please be my guest. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

When an article is too long, the first option that comes to mind is editing it to be more concise. We have no consensus for editing this way? You rejected moving some to another article on the basis that you have some issue with the Guatamala editors? (Did I understand that?) What other option might we consider? Raggz (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo

This section should be severely edited for length - or moved to a seperate article. Raggz (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The section on Ortiz must remain for the simple reason that a cabal of conservative editors have strongarmed the section on Guatemala to include misleading quotations, half-truths, and purposeful obfuscations of the actual situation as it relates to the article. This was undertaken with particular regard to Sister Ortiz' testimony. The only way to combat that is to include the lengthy quotation you see posted. Once upon a time an effort was made to include only a brief summary of her testimony, but unfortunately there were some irresponsible people here who were pushing their particular point of view, and they asked a bunch of their friends to come by and deface the summary. Their primary point of contention was that there were no direct sources to support the allegations made. Consequently, the testimony must now remain as it stands, thanks to the irresponsible and bad-faith editing practices of that cabal. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Raggz (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the victim of a conspiracy, a cabal? Why not get an Administrator to help? Raggz (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now -- that's something i'd never considered. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to bother with such things. Why don't you acquaint yourself with the page history and then we'll see how you can help? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge this entire article?

Consider the WP article state terrorism. It states: "There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is. Why do we have an article limited only to allegations about an undefined subject? Raggz (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are conflating the lack of an internationally defined legal consensus with the lack of a clearly defined subject. The subject is clearly defined and widely discussed; however, because it is a contentious legal issue, there have not yet been any moves to establish a legal framework with which it can be dealt. Stone put to sky (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmnn, perhaps... A good description. How does an encyclopedia deal with such a dilemma? I have a citation where a foreign official accuses the US of terrorism due to US immigration policy. Would US immigration policy be an example of state terrorisim? I'm not sure of your focus, you answer will help. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You will not find such a trivial source in this article. I suggest you do more research. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If I prove that there is such a "trivial source in this article", what then? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Why do we have an article limited only to allegations about an undefined subject? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to verify that an individual or organization has made allegations that the US has committed acts of state sponsored terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though every time Raggz is finally about to settle down to patiently and civilly collaborate with others he abruptly reverts back to extremist posturing. Raggz if you seriously believe that the article should be deleted then you have no business here trying to edit it. If, on the other hand you believe otherwise, you should drop the extremist posturing and the threats. How can others trying to construct a good article trust you enough to collaborate if underneath it all you really believe that it should be deleted? If you believe that it should be deleted then you should wait several months until it is once again eligible for deletion. A very recent nomination for deletion was rejected speedily and unanimously. Besides, there is no substance to your claim that state terrorism is an "undefined subject." This is a canard. Other wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources, for good reasons. It is also notable that the original reference that you distorted cannot be considered authoritative. It was from a news article by a U.N. journalist; not from anyone who studies terrorism-related matters as an academic discipline. I am obliged to remind you that among the many sources who have alleged that the US is complicit in acts of state terrorism are professors from major universities such as Yale (Mark Selden, Ben Kiernan, Greg Grandin), Harvard (Jorge I. Dominguez), Princeton (Richard Falk, Arno Mayer), Hong Kong (Alvin Y. So). Philippines (Walden Bello), UC Berkely (Chalmers Johnson), East Washington (William. K. Perdue), Notre Dame (George A. Lopez), Long Island University (J. Patrice McSherry); to name just a portion. I have been gathering a master list on references to U.S. state terrorism for some time now. I have often thought about posting such a list here in talk. The problem is that the list is very very long indeed. When you state with such certainty that state terrorism is an "undefined subject" you are effectively assuming that all of these professors (and more besides) are just stupid people spilling so much ink over an "undefined subject." But at this point I think you should be truthful to yourself. You cannot possibly know whether or not state terrorism is an undefined subject according to the many analysts who make the allegation because you show no evidence of having made an honest exploration of the literature. If you were honest enough to gain some knowledge about a subject towards which you display much ignorance you might discover that discussions of definitional issues and formulations of definitions are quite common in the literature. You may not disagree with the views expressed, but at least you might have a basis to argue against the views that they actually have on the subject in a rational manner. If I can make a reading suggestion it would be "War and State Terrorism:The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Edited by Mark Selden and Alvin Y. So." You can probably find it at a bookstore or university library. The introduction is very stimulating, and for you I highly recommend the third chapter, by Richard Falk, "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law," since you are attracted to legal themes.BernardL (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this Article only limited to allegations, or may facts be cited?

Logically, we cannot use facts within this article because it is limited to allegations. Facts are beyond our topic. I suggest that the topic is itself untenable.

We could change the topic, myself, I do not favor articles that are self-limited to only discussing allegations. Raggz (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Building upon our consensus, I added new material into the Lead. It explains why we can only discuss allegations but will never discuss any actual facts. Raggz (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we do not have consensus for the Lead? Someone reverting without posting. Please comment here. Raggz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was made in the edit summary. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment was: "make editing suggestions on the talk page before starting edits to the article". Why did you revert it? Your revert was made well after my comments here. Raggz (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: you did not clear that change with the people who are here. For future reference, i would suggest a waiting period of at least 36 hours before presuming that you have some sort of agreement here. Many of the maintainers of this page are quite busy -- i'm on a few off-days right now, so right now i happen to have the time to spend on helping you out, here -- but many of them are also quite busy and don't appear every day. Simply declaring that you are going to edit the page because you think an agreement has been reached in no way indicates an agreement has been reached anywhere except in your own mind, and waiting 30 minutes to then proceed from there to the actual edit -- without any input from the community of page maintainers -- is, as i have explained to you repeatedly, not a good method to use on this page. Simply put: if you make edits without first clearing them with the community of page maintainers here then you are almost certain to see them reverted. I have already explained to you why that is the case several times, now. Once again: my suggestion is that you create a sandbox and make your suggestions there, first. Then we can all make contributions and debate the changes without causing an edit war.

Of course, I am presuming that you are not interested in sparking an edit war. Am i wrong in that? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note here, my edits simply deal with the changing of two words in the current version to less POV ones. I don't see how you can possibly object to replacing "observed" with "claimed" and so on-- saying someone has "observed" is weasel wordy and POV. The word "claimed" is more in line with WP:NPOV. I also advise you to take a less confrontational attitude-- you don't own the article and neither does anyone else. Jtrainor (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity. Five pillars

As a general rule, 36 hours sounds reasonable to me in regard to tacit consent, if you are away (as we all will be) I would not try to use that to advantage. We can always revert. Raggz (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is entirely possible to verify that an individual or organization has made allegations that the US has committed acts of state sponsored terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)" Agreed on all points. Raggz (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see a basic problem here

This article basically has the same kind of problem that the 'list of nuclear accidents' article had-- it does not clearly define it's scope. It needs to have, in the opening portion, a clearly defined set of criteria for inclusion of particular items. Note for example the 'Scope of this article' section in [[23]]. A similar such section is what is needed here and once consensus is reachead on it, the article can be cleaned up significantly and hopefully become far less controversial. Jtrainor (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has clearly outlined its scope: it is a discussion of those actions of the United States that are widely considered to be acts of "State Terrorism". The reason these actions are outlined in the way they are is because constant demands for reliable, NPOV sources have been made. These sources have, therefore, been provided. However, the basic structure of the article is readily apparent: The United States is a country that has created a "War on Terrorism", yet many countries and peoples world wide accuse the United States of many acts of state terrorism. This seems a blatant contradiction, and so evidence has been provided to show that:

A) There are reliable and widely sourced accounts of acts by agents or proxies of the United States that are clearly acts of terrorism. B) There are countries who consider these acts to be acts of State Terrorism undertaken by the United States, and C) There is wide legal, academic and political consensus that these claims are legitimate.

A) has become the largest portion of the article for the simple reason that any time summaries are offered up as evidence they are marginalized through deletions or tendentious editing. B) is undeniably true and probably the easiest portion of the article to demonstrate. For C) the page maintainers have, up until now, been satisfied with showing that the U.S.'s own definitions of "terrorism" clearl cover the actions of its agents as listed in the article below.

There is no problem with the scope; there is only a problem with that group of people who wish to see this article deleted. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no "actions of the United States that are widely considered to be acts of "State Terrorism", what then? How do we determine what "widely considered" means? Until you offer a specific criteria, we cannot have an article, can we? Raggz (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article, and the article clearly shows that there is a wide consensus for viewing certain actions of the United States as acts of state terrorism. Simply because you do not agree with those sources does not mean that the consensus does not exist, just the same way as your disregard for the article does not imply that it fails to meet wikipedia standards. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There exists no Consensus for your claims above. If ever there was a consensus, it now has shifted. "Simply because you do not agree with those sources does not mean that the consensus does not exist." Actually you know very well what Consensus means, and you know that you do not have consensus. If you need to read Consensus, then just read it, don't debate it. Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You will need to offer some reliable source to claim that "that there is a wide consensus for viewing certain actions of the United States as acts of state terrorism". Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I insist that you make a good faith attempt to develop a consensus. A good start would be to specify what you mean by "wide consensus". You introduced "wide consensus", now please explain it. Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And i, in turn, suggest you go review that page you link to and then look up "consensus" in the dictionary, because whatever definition you're using it's not one that anyone else understands. After doing your due diligence, i further suggest that you keep that new definition you've learned in mind and go review the long list of sources that we have here. Any normal understanding of the word "consensus" would clearly describe an issue that has the number, consistency, and wide array of documented sources that appear here. However you might like to spin the issue, a public consensus undeniably exists for the ideas that are herein presented. For my part i do not think you can accuse me of bad faith; i have already made many clear and simple suggestions about how we may proceed, but your response has been to ignore every one of them and continue with your attempt to delete material as you see fit. Thus, it is you -- not i -- who are rejecting wikipedia policy, and it is you -- not i -- who appears to be acting in bad faith. Regardless, i shall continue to presume that you are who you say you are -- a poster who has recently arrived at wikipedia and is interested in cleaning up some messy articles and with that in mind reiterate my suggestions:

• A) Make a sandbox. Introduce your suggestions there. Elicit feedback from the community. Once you have gotten the go-ahead from everyone here (and no, that does not mean getting a simple majority vote from a peanut-gallery of recently arrived editors), then we will proceed with altering the page.

• B) Please keep in mind that the page as it currently exists is dissatisfactory in many people's eyes, myself included. It is, however, the result of a lot of hard negotiations and mutual give and take. Thus, you should understand that some sections are long because others have insisted that they be, and other sections are included as lengthy source material to support trivial declarations in the introduction. The introduction, in particular, is something that has been hotly contentious and will not be easily changed. Any edits you might suggest that appear to water down the intent or subject matter will be hotly disputed. Thus, my suggestion is that you begin your efforts with other portions of the article. Even so, please understand that, according to clearly established wiki policy, you should first present your edits on these talk pages and try to elicit some sort of consensus here before attempting any edits to the main page.

If you can follow these two bits of simple advice then i think we'll have no problems here. Unfortunately, up until this point it seems that you are unwilling to follow the established procedure; moreover, that procedure has already long been validated by Wikipedia -- indeed, it is clearly outlined as the preferred method of use on pages such as this -- so in the context of your recent actions i think it might be safe to conclude that you are uninterested in cooperating with the community of page maintainers here. Are my deductions correct, or is there some sort of misunderstanding? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*Your comments are unclear. You want me to look up the definition of consensus and accept that if we limit the universe to the articles cited here, that they taken as a sum, project a consensus? Recognizing the necessary oversimplification, am I getting what you are saying? If this is what you are saying we can discuss this, but first I need to be clear on what you actually mean?

*You want me to make a sandbox? What is that, and what purpose would be served?

*I support WP policy, to date it seems to be great. I have no issues with any of it. Which policy are you discussing?

*What actions "appear to water down the intent or subject matter"? Are you declaring that there is an "intent" for this article? This implies an intent to violate NPOV? If not, please explain because this is how I understand you. Raggz (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are having a hard time understanding what i'm suggesting. I have no doubt that this has nothing to do with either improper grammar, syntax, lexiconomy, or usage of words. Therefore, i suggest you go back and re-read what i have written until you arrive at a few conclusions on your own. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am cooperative. How might I be more so? I am seeking Consensus. What does "watering down" mean? Raggz (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should seek mediation? We could begin with that above? Raggz (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always considered the definition section as in need of more work. It is worth discussing to determine what it should incorporate and what is non-essential, so as to provide the article with a better orientation. My current impressions are that the mainstream definitions from Britannica, 2 from the FBI, and the State Dept, are excessively redundant. If anything there should be one mainstream definition with which to compare a sampling of two or three definitions from analysts that make the allegations. It should be discussed whether the "U.S. government's own definitions" section can be either merged into the definition section or jettisoned completely. All of this can be thoroughly discussed and will take some time. I am willing to provide samples of definitions used by notable sources who make the allegation. I can also do my part to point to definitional/conceptual themes in the literature. Of course, I expect others would have interesting ideas and feedback to contribute as well. I feel that the definitions by Schmid and Stohl are worthy candidates. The Schmid definition has been described as the U.N.'s unofficial "academic consensus" definition and that of Stohl comes from his text book on terrorism, which is in its third edition." (see the references section of the article) BernardL (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition should be included with each allegation made. Without the definition, what does the allegation mean? The article suggests state terrorism against Cuba, but in the cite the Cuban official only discusses US immigration policy, which he cites as "terrorism". The Article does not make it clear that in this case, US immigration policy is the terrorist act, and it should. The definition section might be to vague to have any use. What is needed is an allegation-specific definition of what is meant. They needn't then match each other (as they do not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The definitions from the Dept. of State and the FBI are hardly redundant -- they are the only two official, policy-level definitions of terrorism published by the U.S. government, and by providing them both here the full foundation of the U.S. term "terrorism" is circumscribed. The passage concerning the UN definition is also appropriate insofar as it enables people to contrast the U.S. definitions against the single most widespread International definition. I will concede that the definitions from Britannica and the various analysts may be overkill, but at the very least these three must remain.

I would like to point out, however, that -- IIRC -- the Britannica and other definitions have been included at the behest of the deletionist cabal led by MONGO, et al. I myself consider them overkill, and i also consider them irrelevant to the article as a whole. But there may be others who might protest their removal. About that, i don't know. Perhaps we should leave a message on the home-pages of Tom Harrison, MONGO, TDC, and JTrainor? Those people seem to be in charge of the group, and if they don't have any objections to the removal of the content then perhaps we can go ahead and trim it down, some. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with ANY definition used by any section alleging an incident to be state terrorism IF this definition is included with the allegation. Each section likely uses different but undefined criteria to call it state terrorism. Use the FBI definition, or any definition, but offer context for each allegation.

If there is consensus to remove the entire definition section, I won't oppose this IF instead each allegation gets an appropriate contextual definition so the reader knows what is alleged. You may contact any cabals that you wish, I know of none. Raggz (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On tacit consensus

Some of the editors on this and related pages have invented the notion of tacit consensus. Please note that there is nothing at WP:CONSENSUS about tacit consensus, and invoking this as a rationale for anything is a flawed and disingenuous misrepresentation of official Wikipedia policy, and should not be tolerated. If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit, then it would be spelled out clearly in the official policy. It is not. Thus if editors here and elsewhere insist upon using the notion of "tacit consensus" as a justification for their removals of information or other edits likely to be controversial, then I must insist that they go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and obtain community acceptance and approval of "tacit consensus" first. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for that clarification, SR. I think that was quite clear and unambiguous, and i hope our fellow editors here will all take it to heart. Stone put to sky (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus Does anyone dispute that this is about tacit consensus? If so, how is this different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"if there is adequate exposure to the community" is the part that seems not to have been applied in some recent applications of 'tacit consensus' to edits to this article (and others). I am not really sure how you can monitor/measure how much 'exposure' any change/proposed change has recieved within the community to be able to move ahead on the basis that adequate numbers of interested (and potentially opposed) parties are aware. And what once may have been a tacit concensus may certainly change at a later time to visible non-concensus.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Raggz (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there that mentions "tacit consensus". At any rate, that's not for us to discuss on this page -- you should take that up with the wiki-policy pages and the people who work on those. Here, we simply follow the rules. I see nothing in there that mentions "tacit consensus", and in addition there is an explicit declaration that there must be "adequate exposure to the community" -- which, so far, none of your edits and deletions have fulfilled. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems a very large step. There has been, essentially, a minor disagreement over process and now you want to step into mediation? That sounds suspiciously to me as if you expect to gain some sort of unethical back-room aid from a friendly administrator. In any event, if we need to seek mediation then so far it is over one and only one issue: whether or not you should sandbox your suggested edits and get approval for them before applying them to the page at hand. If you would like to seek mediation over this issue then please -- feel free. I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate for us to discuss anything that has to do with content until such time as you can float some suggestions for us here, on the talk page. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky, you do realize that mediation is non-binding, right? Jtrainor (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly Wabbit is quite right on this one. Raggz is again trying to bulldozer this article, with fanciful inventions like "tacit consensus."BernardL (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate for us to discuss anything that has to do with content until such time as you can float some suggestions for us here, on the talk page." This might be a better mediation topic? We need to start communicating and we need mediation to do this. Would it be that hard to find a mediation topic? It is a process to enhance communication. I like your quote, how about it? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"It seems we have reached tacit consensus, does anyone here have anything more to add?" Does this seem like a WikiWMD, a WikiBulldozer? Really? Read this sentence one more time ... Raggz (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in itself is innocuous enough; the problem is, however, that i have been vociferously denying that any consensus has been reached, and yet -- on the basis of your own fancies -- you have tried to push through the edit anyway. Moreover, you did not float your suggested edit on this page first; you did not ask for input on whether or not the edit was acceptable; and then, when the edit was -- in accordance with policy -- deleted, you began decrying that mediation was somehow needed. Thus, it was not the original declaration that was wrong, but your entire approach towards editing this page. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All of your claims are possible. If such occured, I apologize. At this point, what issue now remains?

Denial of consensus is an important and valid part of Consensus. To be valid, a denial of consensus must be made as part of a good faith effort to seek consensus. Consensus does not permit the denial of consensus otherwise (in my opinion). Part of a good faith effort to seek consensus is a willingness to communicate. It is unclear if you are (1) unwilling to communicate or (2) unable to communicate (or both). Because I assume good faith, I presume that we are unable to communicate, and that mediation will help. If I believed that you were "unwilling to communicate", then another approach might be necessary. Perhaps the communications issues are in fact all my fault, if so, mediation will also help. Raggz (talk) 21:17, 12 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.
-Syria Times: Published by the government of Syria, a well-known sponsor of terrorism.
-Center for Research on Globalization: Strong anti-US bias.
-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.
-Worker's World: Another pro-Communist organization.

You can see a similar pattern with regards to many of the others. 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. 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. 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.BernardL (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I could not have said that better myself. Well done, Bernard. 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. 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 nowStone 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talk • contribs)

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. 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? Raggz (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the exposure to date, I believe that we may presume tacit consensus on this. 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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, [[24]] and thereafter taken to levels concerned with policy formation.BernardL (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA. If you cannot be polite, then simply do not post things. 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. 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 RS. 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. 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. 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. REDFLAG applies. WP's policy on "exceptional claims" applies. 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. 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. 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? 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.BernardL (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 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. 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. 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 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. Raggz (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This line of argument is just...incredible. 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". 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 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 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Here is a link at an apparent mirror site where you can read Galloway's comments if you have not already.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. 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 verifiability policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise the RS policy? Irrelevant to the WP:REDFLAG. I am indeed interested in why you believe that I am misreading REDFLAG. You could be correct. So what am I missing? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? Raggz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. Abiasaph (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Source is reliable.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. 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? 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. Raggz (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)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.--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.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The question that remains is if its admission to be outside of the mainstream means that 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"? Raggz (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that IPS self-identifies as outside of the mainstream? 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. 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. 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. 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.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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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, as institutions, 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 widely regarded to be extremist 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.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 reliable sourcing. This line of thought is probably better suited for the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 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 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. 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. --Abia^₪₪₪Saph 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. 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).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Why not talk about facts?". Because we have arbitrarily limited ourselves to allegations. 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. 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.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. 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.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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Consensus may not overule 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. 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 RS anyway - so we don't get to debate policy, only if it applies. What part of RS do you claim supports including this citation? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 verifiability. Sorry if that's harsh, but we're wasting a lot of time here debating things that don't need to be debated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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 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? 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. 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. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:05, 16 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? 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. 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. 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". Granma has compared itself to the "mainstream media", so has self-designated itself as out side of the mainstream.

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 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. 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?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 REDFLAG. Do you have a reliable source that denies it's self-description? 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."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? 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.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 REDFLAG. How do you read Policy on this? 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.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. 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.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. 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. 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. 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. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. Please elaborate? 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.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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Workers World

http://www.workers.org/ Enough said? 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. 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. 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'. 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? 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. 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.Stone put to sky (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Governments pretending to be journalists are not really journalists. 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? 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.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. 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? 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. 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. Wayne (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? 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.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? Raggz (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

After Guantanamo and 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. 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. 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.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. 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). 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. 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 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. 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.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I put RED FLAG where REDFLAG was intended. 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 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? 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.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. 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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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. 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? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is expressed above, but Cohn says no such thing. 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. 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) 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?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets begin with 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? Raggz (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The LEAD

State terrorism is an undefined phrase without any exact meaning within international law that means anyone may allege that any action by any state for any reason is state terrorism. Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven.

Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page. Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article. Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here. Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have cites appearing in the lead. If you know how, please handle them because I don't know how. Probably my fault? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my concern. Your changes have been reverted, per "tendentious editing", "NPOV", "weasel words", and "lack of consensus". Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence that this addition improves the article is disputed by most of the long-term editors here. Secondly, you did not present the changes on the talk page first. Third, you have ignored all the feedback you've gotten on your proposed changes. Finally, you have pushed through with the changes even despite the well-reasoned, content-neutral arguments that have been provided as a counter to your reasoning. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page." Why? The phrase is in our title. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the page that deals with discussing the concept of State Terrorism. This page uses that concept. It is an entirely different order of logic, and so appropriate when discussing the single concept rather than on a page that is addressing how that concept is perceived relative to the United States. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article." Where does it say that there is no crime known as state terrorism in any law? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly states that there is no accepted, universal legal definition for "State Terrorism". I think it shoud be easy for you to find if you look for it yourself. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here." I agree. I don't really know what it is. Why doesn't this article explain this? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to the article to explain what facts you personally don't know; similarly, if you want to know what "State Terrorism" is then the page to do find that out would be here . Finally, i would suggest -- since you have just now admitted that you don't even know what "state terrorism" is -- that maybe you should find another article to go edit.Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. A reliable source, please. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been given; they were deleted. However, since i am not providing this material for the page itself but am instead simply discussing what content is appropriate to include then i don't have any responsibility to provide you with evidence. My suggestion is that you google "State Terrorism" and "International Law"; in the mass of links that are returned you will find more than enough sources that will clearly validate this statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. A reliable source, please, one that says that this exists and deals with the International Court of Justice ruling? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See the above comment. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot take anything BernardL has to say as particularly reliable after his little display on this talk page (personal attacks, then editing to hide them). Jtrainor (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about his character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof that an editor is not engaged in a good faith effort for Consensus is VERY relevant. Consensus only applies to such a good faith effort. Editors that do not make a good faith effort to comply with Consensus may eventually be ignored for the purpose of Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This line of talk is about an editor, not about the substance or issue at hand. As such its diversionary and a personal attack. I suggest we remove this line of distracting talk. This is all more the case given its directed at a very good long time editor to this article who has been very civil, and constructive. The alleged instance of incivility has been altered by the editor in question in line with acceptable norms. Thus, there is no valid basis for any of us to simply ignore him, or fail to assume good faith. Further attempts along these lines is clear evidence of not acting in good faith, and being disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with much of the above, I do agree that it should have been on the user's discussion page (as it is) and not here. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 14 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.

1. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since July 2007.
2. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2007.
3. It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since July 2007.
4. It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text.Tagged since July 2007.

Giovanni33 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe that we have consensus? Raggz (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhh...that would be consensus...for what, excatly? 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? 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. 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. 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.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please move them back to the one section in question. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an agreement to deny Consensus? Policy may not be denied by a majority vote. 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? 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? 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. 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? 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.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. 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 tendentious editing at its worst.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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 with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities 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. "

• 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. 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.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. 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:[25], 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?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. 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: [26]. Here is another from CANF: [27]. It would be nice to find an inspector general report. 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 fact 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. 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. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BernardL and I have already responded to your objection above. 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. 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." [[28]]

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). 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. 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.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. 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.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. Raggz (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we comply with Synthesis, ONLY the "irredentist elements" are accused of terrorism. Where is the US acussed? 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. 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. 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."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 synthesis. The source should be removed. 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.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).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just proved why using that citation is OR. Therefore it must be removed. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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).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. 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? 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 Synthesis. 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. 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the applicable policy: 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? 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 Synthesis (which goes nowhere) instead link to 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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 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. 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. Synthesis 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? 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.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. 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.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. 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. Raggz (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that? It's a special for Granma international, originally published on ZNet: [29]. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take you at your word. 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. 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. 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 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.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. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take you at your word. 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. 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. 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? 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 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. 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. John Smith'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.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. John Smith's (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor did explain the change. Look at the edit summaries -- "See Talk". 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The change in question 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. John Smith'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. 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. John Smith'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.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? 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. 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. 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. 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? 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This question is absurd. I suggest that nobody answer it. 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? 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 request for comment on Raggz' editorial practices, though it might be a bit premature for that. I have found Raggz' editing to be 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 dispute resolution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That IP is Stone put to sky. 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. Raggz (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to take this one on? Tag me and I'm "it"!! 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am committed to 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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.BernardL (talk) 15:59, 21 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. 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. 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.)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. 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.)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 Synthesis. To be applicable to this article, it would need to involve references relating to state terrorism, which it does not have. 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. 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. 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."TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:19, 20 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.)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. 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. BernardL (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

US immigration and extradition policy as state terrorism

"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 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? 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:46, 20 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...[[30]]...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. 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.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:53, 20 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. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:16, 22 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. 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.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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 23 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? 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). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:05, 24 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. 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.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 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.

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? Raggz (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)