Jump to content

Talk:United States and state terrorism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StefenTower (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 15 August 2006 (→Name suggestions: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Please see Talk:American terrorism for an older discussion relevant to this topic.

Reason for creation

Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a page for things describes as acts of terrorism by the US - American terrorism. I've redirected the pages there. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be merged, not redirected as content from this article will be lost RaveenS 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the other article American_terrorism is a mess, this one is better organized and needs to be expanded before any merger happensRaveenS
What needs to be done to improve it? Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, American Terrorism is a article on definition, this is an article on acts, hence I have changed my view about merge. It should be keepRaveenS

Does anyone else want to give an opinion? Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in AfD, stubbify, keep on the AfD, drop it to RS, I think merge into the other article, and then rename the other article. American terrorism implies acts against the US, as opposed to acts considered as terrorism acts by Americans by foreign parties. rootology (T) 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AT article deters discussion of actual events and history b/c unless someone prominent has labeled the act "terrorism" it cannot be mentioned. This page by contrast actually informs about the unseemly past. However, merging some content from the AT article into THIS article would be a good idea. --NYCJosh 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think NYCJosh's view above nicely summarises my concerns. He wants a platform where he can tell the Truth, and finds that the requirements for citation make that harder. Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What article do you think is a mess? Tom Harrison Talk 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand section?

I don't think we need to solicit accusations of American terrorism on the presumption that it has occured. I've removed the sections on Nicaragua and Chile. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK for now RaveenS 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom,
Check the source before reverting my correction, please. The source is the NY Times for the Iraq bombing. Commondreams just archived it. As for the reporter's name, since when is the reporter's name of a major paper (the NYT) mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Should every fact in all articles be prefaced with something like "Joe Smith writing for Major News Source X reports that the dow jones lost y points last week"? It's bordering on deliberate underreporting. As it is, the piece is prefaced with "according to fornmer US intel officials." --NYCJosh 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your version of the article is what is in place. What is your question? Should every fact in all articles be prefaced with something like "Joe Smith writing for Major News Source X reports that the dow jones lost y points last week"? No. Should this assertion be prefaced by who makes it? I think so. Or maybe I am missing your point. Tom Harrison Talk 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, why on this article is it relevant to cite the reporter's name as well? rootology (T) 22:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See American terrorism, and the discussion page there. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many researchers?

I'd like to see a clarification of the word "many" in the sentence "However, many researchers have commented that the true aim was often to increase the power and control of the United States over Europe." Is there a list somewhere of these "many" researchers? Otherwise I can only assume the statement is speculative. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ganser lists a number of researchers in his book. I don't know what your threshold for 'many' is but besides Dr. Ganser, here are some more articles saying much the same: [1] [2], and here is the US government admitting the existance of Gladio but denying it was involved in terrorism in Greece [3] Self-Described Seabhcán 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil empire

Wow...the evidence in this article is very compelling! No doubt the U.S. has a history of terrorism that exceeds all other entities. The use of quality references is also impressive...I can see absolutely no efforts to "dig" for info here...this stuff is very mainstream and there is isn't any potential radical subversion apparent.--MONGO 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to cause a fight, but the United States POV is irrelevant on Wikipedia, only NPOV per Wikipedia policy... rootology (T) 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no one understands sarcasm anymore. So instead, I'll be factual. The references cited are either radical ro extremely biased sources...period.--MONGO 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contest the sources used to NPOV this article. They are, as I mentioned, radical or simply POV...therefore a NPOV tag has been placed on the article.--MONGO 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exatly why we created this article so that POV fighters can fight it out in their turf than to muddy and destroy a very vlaubale article on State terrorism User:RaveenS
Sometimes I think worse is better. I am kind of looking forward to seeing exactly what the contributors think constitutes neutral presentation. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, can you give specific examples of what you think to be "radical"? There are 27 references here. Please detail which are 'radical' and why you think so. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. There is almost nothing in this article which satisfies Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. In addition, it directly violates Wikipedia policy against "connecting the dots". See WP:NOR for an education about Wiki policy. Please completely rewrite this article. Morton devonshire 01:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feed the neo-cons. Travb (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR in this article. If you would care to read the sources you will educate your self and realise this is the case. All conclusions here (connected dots) are 100% taken from the published references. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed these paragraphs

I removed the following:

The United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate the Cuban head of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, proposed the assassination of Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro [1].

In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passangers. The US claimed the act it to be an error. However, following the incident, the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons and the air-warfare co-ordinator won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident[2]. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $63m componsation.

Interesting paragraphs, but it isn't terrorism per se, when in the first case it is an assassination attempt, and in the second case, the US claimed that it was an accident. Travb (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iran vs. United States

As far as I can tell, the cited references for this section do not mention terrorism. --JWSchmidt 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will merge

After this AfD, i am going to merge this article with American terrorism, I think that is the general consesus. Travb (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this move. The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes. I would equally object to an article such as "Jewish terrorism" or "Arab terrorism", however, "Terrorism by Israel" or "Terrorism by Egypt" (with good content) would be acceptable and NPOV. Material from American terrorism could be moved here, however.Self-Described Seabhcán 11:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Seabhcan.--MONGO 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Reason_for_creation has 3 or 4 merge votes, I didn't know this was contentious. Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a while American terrorism was stable as American terrorism (term), as part of some deal involving Islamofascism, if I remember right. It has been about the use of the term in contemporary discourse. The name was changed at the end of May. If it is just going to be a collection of anectdotes chosen to convince readers of the US' essential moral equivalence with Al-Qaida, I have no preference what title is used. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we can narrow it down to one article, then it is easier to keep all the radical POV pushing in one place. According to certain perspectives, virtually any recognized government entity could be found to have committed some manner of terrorists action. I suppose for a title requirement, moving American Terrorism to this article is more accurate though I stated the opposite on the Afd.--MONGO 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD is to keep I'd recommend keeping it as-is as the name. Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay. It's really nothing to do (as said above) with POV pushing or anything silly like that. From my comment just now on AfD: "Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this."

Simply put, each of the articles has merit as they exist now, and I'll politely remind everyone we are not here to support a pro-Syria, pro-Libya, or pro-United States viewpoint--anyone here for that is here for the very wrong reasons. We're here to build a factually accurate encyclopedia based on WP:V and WP:RS, and the others. Whether the source of the RS is not to one's taste is utterly irrelevant and not for consideration--does it meet RS by the written policy? If so, it counts. rootology (T) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not remind us of Wikipedia:No original research. Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's covered by "others", my reply was long enough already. Scanning the talk page the only mention of NOR previously was Morton's comment today. What do you consider to OR in the article as it exists now? Also, what do you think of my specific statement that Wikipedia shall not be pro-any country? rootology (T) 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR says in part, "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." I think that is what the article is likely to be. As far as your idea of 'not pro-any country', I think I prefer the formulation in WP:NPOV. Tom Harrison Talk 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could see removal of the Nicaragua section based on this, but the others in and of themselves are allegations (or in the world court one) proven cases of terrorism. I'd say that Allegations of State terrorism by United States of America would be a better title, and that section removed. rootology (T) 23:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the Nicaragua section as original research? I cut and paste this intro from the Nicaragua v. US page, I can, if necessary, back up each one of those words with several law review articles which state the same thing. It is probably the best case of American terrorism ever.Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 RE User:Seabhcan: The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes.

As per: Talk:Howard_Zinn#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue, which you can read in full to get the full quote, Ward Churchill states:

Progressives, on the other hand, while acknowledging many of America’s more reprehensible features...have become quite (uniform) in attributing all things negative to handy abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression,” and, yes, “the hierarchy.” Hence, they have been able to conjure what might be termed the “miracle of immaculate genocide,” a form of genocide, that is, in which—apart from a few amorphous “decision-making élites” —there are no actual perpetrators and no one who might “really” be deemed culpable by reason of complicity. The parallels between this “cutting edge” conception and the defense mounted by postwar Germans—including the nazis at Nuremberg—are as eerie as they are obvious.

Do you fit into this camp User:Seabhcan? This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.” Please read the full quote of Churchill. American history is replete with examples of Americans simply not giving a fuck about who the American government tortures, kills, or imprisons. I can give you a long list of horrors perptrated by the US government and the US population just doesn't care, in fact, they often reelect these leaders in land slide victories.

American empire can also fit into this definition of a "racial slur" but through a lot of hard work and comprimise from me and other editors, we have defined the term in such a way that it becomes an encyclopedic article, and not a "racial slur". Both American terrorism and State terrorism by United States of America are simply not up to this level yet, and they have a long way to go. (Granted, there is a lot I really dislike about American empire, including the use of the "imperialism".)

Ironically, this AfD was a good catalyst for change, but both articles still need a hell of a lot of work, including decent, knowlegable conservative editors (none of those who have voted for the AfD seem to be rising to the challenge). The person who voted to destroy this article has actually made it stronger. I get a good sense of pleasure in this delicious irony.

Again, we have two sets of article which can be merged into one. Thus far the votes for merge outweigh the votes for not merging.

I have worked on a hell of a lot of really controversial wikisites. There are a lot of things that we liberals and left leaning folks can do to insure that this article never goes through another AfD again. My experience with the Template:AmericanEmpire series has taught me a lot. I will throw some of these ideas out after the AfD. I will even invite the most intellegent conservative I know on wikipedia, and the most dangerous foe I have ever gotten in an edit war with, to come and give his two cents to this article. This is because I believe that the strongest articles on wikipedia have all sides represnted, not just one side. I look forward to working with you all, and working with real wikipedian editors, conservatives included who do not use pre-teen vandal tactics. MONDO is a smart conservative who may be able to contribute something to this article.Travb (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is semantics, but it is important semantics. Yes, real people from America committed real crimes, so why not call these crimes 'American'. To take two similar examples... real German people carried out the Holocaust, yet we refer to it as having been committed by Nazi's. Why? Or for an older example, people from Italy killed Christ and committed genocide in Israel in 70AD, yet we refer to the perpetrators as 'Romans'.
I think there is a good and proper reason for this. We say that 'Nazis' did the holocaust because this act was carried out under a certain ideology and by members of a certain subgroup within the German nation at that time. To say 'Germans' did it is to first, imply a racial guilt of all Germans, both those who lived at the time and those yet to be born, and second, to ignore the complexities of the time, to simplify the events and motivations and hide it all behind behind a shield of ignorance in the term 'evil'. This is more comforting and we can say to ourselves, "If it happened because of 'evil', and I am not 'evil', then I have nothing to worry about.".
The reality is that bad things are done by otherwise good people - and even if we ourselves are good, our actions may result in evil. Plenty of Germans were very good people, even at that time, even many who were nazis. (I have a personal story about my wife's grandmother who was a slave labouror in Germany during the war - she was saved by the wife of a Nazi officer who was later executed for (other) war crimes. Its too long to give the details here)
Also, it covers up the complexity of events. eg. Hitler executed 10,000s of germans who faught against Nazism.
To call it "American" terrorism covers up these important details in the same way. The terrorism is committed by a very small subgroup within US society who behave according to a particular ideology. Yes they are supported by the tax paying public, but I disagree that this implies uniform guilt on the entire population. Many people in America fight against this ideology, and they are no less American than the criminals. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, you are simply restating what Ward Churchill said.
"This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.”"
You ignore that our leaders are elected, and that we as Americans choose these leaders to invade and kill and mame. I can think of at least three presidents who trampled pacifist opponents in landslides. Reagan, Nixon, and TR. Americans simply don't give a fuck. As long as Americans have a full tank of gas, a generally nice standard of living, the vast majority of Americans simply don't care who we kill and how we kill them to continue to have the standard of living that we have. Don't simply blame our democratically elected leaders for the terrorism that they have caused abroad. There are millions of Americans who vote for these leaders who don't care. They don't care that Exxon takes 70% of the profits from gas extraction, Americans don't care if only 17 cents of every dollar in bannana production actually goes back to the central american countries. Americans don't care that we killed 200,000 one million Filipinos in the Philippine-American War. I could go on and on and on. The voting record shows clearly that those who care, really care about American terrorism are in the minority. Remember presidents have some of the highest approval ratings before wars--Bush has been no exception. History is literred with politicans who were pacifists and who lost. Is there any doubt why the democrats are so unwilling to support the anti-war left? It is because the majority of Americans support the wars, the bloodshed and the horrors that our country has caused abroad, and they benefit from it. If the democrats embraced this spirit of pacifism it would be political suicide.
Have you read Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust? I don't think that the holocaust could have happened if the German people in gereral were not racists, nor could the horrors caused by the Japanese against the Chinese have happened without racism, nor could the American genocide of the indians, not the nuclear bombing of Japan and internment of the Japanese happened without American racism. I have other examples but I will not go on. I am a real big supporter of National Guilt.
It is really easy for Americans to come to terms with the genocide of the Indians and slavery, because they are convinently in the past and there is no benefit from their use anymore. The indians have been exterminated, and the slaves were forcefully freed. Just like the vast majority of Americans who supported slavery or genocide of the indians when it was happening, the vast majority of Americans support American foreign policy because Americans are prospering from the decisions of our government's foreign policy now. I addressed this question in my web blog here: A perplexing contradiction in the way Americans see history.
So you are simply blaming the leaders that we as Americans elect, instead of focusing your ire at your friends, neighbors, family, and yourself, who benefit from these policies, and who actively voted for these leaders. It is really easy and human nature to blame someone else, harder to take blame yourself. I think Ward Churchill really is on to something with his article: The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens. Leftist authors like Howard Zinn class warfare is inspiring, and makes allies among the lower classes, but it is dishonest. The vast majority of Americans, of all social classes have historically supported American foreign policy, just as they supported Slavery and the American genocide of the Indians before. Travb (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 RE User:Rootology: Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay.

Actually, I see no precedent at all. Look at: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state or Category:State_terrorism. There seems to be no consesus at all. I simply don't care which article is merged into which. I just think they should be merged. We can talk about moving this article to a less POV and less likely to be deleted article name later. For now I think the articles should just be merged. Travb (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>[http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=2277 defdefensa.org: Secret Warfare: From Gladio to 9/11]</ref>

Signed: Travb (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

In this diff [4] you use the edit summary, "Revert vandalism of morty". He removed information he regards as unsourced. He has at least an arguable case. Do you not agree that his edit was a good-faith effort to improve the page? I also wonder at your rationale for restoring to the article material sourced to babaklayeghi.blogspot.com. Tom Harrison Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I wrote on the AfD:

Morty is refusing to bring up any concrete examples of suspicious sources, and instead he deletes large portions of the article itself, calling them "disreputable sources", here are the "disreputable sources" which Morty deleted[5]: New York Times, The Independent and The Guardian, among others. As I mentioned above, "I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians." Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Tom's response:

In the diff you provide, I do see a link to The Guardian; and I see several references to The Times and The Independent, but the links seem to go to:
commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org, Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom stated this: "He removed information he regards as unsourced." but in the AfD he lists himself, 12 sources which Morty deleted. Travb (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed blog

Rajiva, Lila (2005). "The Pentagon's 'NATO Option'". The Minority Report. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I removed this blog as per suggestion from Tom. Signed: Travb (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisk story

I've removed the following passage from this article:

Independent journalist Robert Fisk reported on May 8th 2006 that in Syria and Iraq the US is widely believed to be behind some of the recent wave of 'insurgent' carbombings in Baghdad (although Fisk himself expressed skepticism about these rumors). He interviewed an unnamed Syrian security source who recounted stories such as the following:

My reason for removal: It misinterprets what Fisk actually wrote. His story is titled "Through a Syrian Lens" and reports that there are Syrians who believe in a "fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties." Moreover, Fisk is careful to specify that he himself has doubts about the truth of allegations such as the story quoted above of the Iraqi man whose car allegedly blew up. He writes: "Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable."

Fisk is giving an account of stories that were told to him by an unnamed "security source" in Syria, and by Fisk's own account he has not attempted to verify the accuracy of those stories. For example, Fisk doesn't say that he actually spoke with the Iraqi soldier whose story is quoted above. Fisk's reporting tells us something about the type of rumors flying in Iraq and Syria, but it shouldn't be presented here as though these allegations are actually proven. --Sheldon Rampton 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I don't think the section misrepresents at all. It states Fisk reports that "the US is widely believed to", not that Fisk himself thinks this. I'll clarify it and put it back in. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even saying that the US "is widely believed to" overstates the case. He says that stories like this are given credence in Syria and in Iraq (although he gives no specific examples from Iraq in this story). Also, these rumors about US sponsorship of carbombings should be lumped together with Fisk's comments about Haditha and the likelihood that US forces have committed other massacres. I've done some rewriting to separate the two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon Rampton (talk • contribs)
You're right about splitting the two. Looks good. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't middle easterners, particularly Iraqis prone to conspiracy theories? I have read this before. I know Americans, for example, are also prone to conspiracy theories (UFOs, WTC, JFK, etc.) but not on the scale of Iraqis. I will read the article in full and put my two cents in.Travb (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a very sweeping statement to say a particular nation is 'prone' to conspiracy theories, particularly for a nation which was so often the victim of real and proven conspiracies in the past (the Iraq war, for example). Just my opinion. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have read a few articles about this though--maybe it is racist and inaccurate--don't know. Travb (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Frisk again

I removed the Frisk story above.

The reason I re-removed the above, is just as Sheldon Rampton stated, is that Frisk interviewed one man: "a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source"" and reported his stories. These are third hand stories at best: an Iraqi tells this security source, and then this security source tells Frisk. This is rumors and gossip. Not terribly convincing.

I also removed this, from the "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" :

In June 2006, Fisk editorialized that the Haditha killings might be "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq. [4]

"The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" is Frisk's opinion, and pure conjecture: "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."

There are plenty of excellent examples of American terrorism. We have only grazed the surface. These two articles only weaken this article as a whole. Currently in this article we have reports from the NYT, the Moscow Times, the National Archives, and the International Court of Justice, next to Frisk's third hand accounts of something that might have happened, and pure speculation and conjecture.

I agree with Frisk on most things, but these two articles are not really very factually strong, and should be kept out of the article. Better to place them on the Frisk page.Travb (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton's mass nuking

Removing 90% of an article in one fell swoop without clearly detailing why isn't really appropriate... please explain why they should go. I rv'd it. rootology (T) 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy prohibits these sources under its reliable sources policy. See particularly Self-published sources as secondary sources at [6]. Thanks. Morton devonshire 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in this article fall under this definition? You deleted links to the New York Times, The Moscow Times, The Independent, The Guardian, etc. Are these 'self-published'? If so, what isn't? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Harrison described them above. Let me remind you: commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org Morton devonshire 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom's opinion was disputed, and themoscowtimes is a valid source, as is commondream's archival of a NY times page. Perhaps we should just list the references to the NY times piece as an offline reference, which is also valid for media not available online. Would that satisfy you for that one? rootology (T) 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Moscow Times is a major newspaper. Ethlife is the magazine of ETH, a very important university in Switzerland. You also deleted links to The Guardian, The Independent and text of European Parliament resolutions.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored my little blurb on User:Morton devonshire behavior. Morty and Tom keep recycling the same garbage and trying to sell it as new. A casual observer can see clearly that their arguments have no merits. Further, with a little study and reflection, it is obvious that they are simply pushing their POV, masking it in wikipolicy, a common tactic of POV warriors who don't have the desire or the talent to research articles themselves.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we are going to say 'who thinks', there is no reason to have 'are thought to have...' in an encyclopedia. We might as well say, "It is whispered in the market place..." Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, put in the list of people who think it then. Its a really widely accepted part of history, so it will be a long list. I would leave it up the reader to assume it refers to the 12 citations in that section.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...which brings us back to the basis of POV dispute on the content of this article, and comes full circle to the whole Pro-nations thing. These foreign sources are "saying" they "believe" or "think" that the acts in question were terrorism. The US itself says it's not. Who's right? It's not our place to say. They were notable enough events in and of themselves, and these RS qualified sources say they are. That's the basis of nearly every article--Text is written in the article. Does it meet V from a RS? Yes/no. Is the RS reaching the conclusion that some editors like or personally believe? Absolutely irrelevant to anything on all of Wikipedia. rootology (T) 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Tom and Morty keep up this recycled allegations, with no basis in fact, I am going to have to ask them questions and paint them in the corner, continuing to ask them questions until they either give up or give me an answer. They both ignore facts which are inconvent to their own POV, and have added not one word to this article.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are the sources to back it up, just say "agents of Gladio were resposnible for the Bologna massacre." If there are not, then don't say it. "It is thought that" has no place here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Done. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's sourced as you say, you should go and update Bologna massacre. It's barely given a mention there. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which is what people are trying to do--source the article. If there is a concern with specific wording by all means do address that. I just remind everyone that we need to make sure that the nature of something or content of something that meets RS is irrelevant as far as being "liked". You tend to skew from your edits and opinions a bit more conservative and pro-American, which is totally fine, as everyone is entitled to their own personal POV. In my personal POV not all of these were terrorism--but my personal POV means nothing for the article, nor should anyone else's. I just keep seeing that being a factoring issue in a lot of the arguments/work/editing, and it needs to stop. Not singling you out, but just reiterating for everyone's benefit. rootology (T) 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if global warming has been described as an act of American terrorism in the European press. And there is no mention yet of America's responsibility for AIDS. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Europeon press started saying all over that this was the case it would be worthy of inclusion in some form. Red herring... rootology (T) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the U.S. was ever guilty of terrorism, it was to the aboriginal peoples of the U.S. The rest of this stuff is definitely simply POV based on sources that I find to be POV...so counterbalance is badly needed.--MONGO 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and not grounds for deletion--that's just a content matter. There surely is some V/RS stuff out there that could be added to balance. rootology (T) 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, you have yet to write one damn word in this article. Why not do some research instead of recycling dubious claims and supporting mass deletions? User:Rootology wrote: Exactly, which is what people are trying to do--source the article. well, this is partial correct, only one group of people are sourcing this article, the other group is whining and attempting to get this article deleted, and to my knowledge and have added nothing to this article, not one word.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONDO: If the U.S. was ever guilty of terrorism, it was to the aboriginal peoples of the U.S. The rest of this stuff is definitely simply POV based on sources that I find to be POV...so counterbalance is badly needed. Well Monodo, use your considerable research skills to actually write something in this article. You are good at countering the 9/11 conspiracy theories, why not actually take those research skills and apply them here? Thus far I have yet to see one conservative with a counter view add one sentence to this article. Instead everyone is screaming "POV" probably because the views that are expressed here are completely opposite their own ideology and American civil religion. As I have been reminded myself a few times, wikipedia is not a chat board, this is an encyclopedia. Start building and stop whining. I have already removed three sections from this article, and because I did it in a diplomatic way, explaining my deletions, 2 of these three deletions have stayed removed. Whereas Morty has deleted large sections, with no explation, or clearly erroneous explanations, and his edits have been removed immediatly. So this begs the question: who is the most effective wikipedia editor, Morty or myself? Who more effectively pushes his POV, Morty or myself. I learned long ago that the key to winning edit wars is out research your opponents. This takes a lot of work and dedication, which clearly no conservative wikieditor has shown here.
If you don't want to spend the time reseaching this subject, wikipedians who gripe and belly ache and attempt to push their own POV using wikipedia policy as a weapon, are wasting everyones time.Travb (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out. I'll get to that when I feel like it. As far as I am concerned, and I have stated this already, the article is POV. I'll get to the details about WHY later when I log back on.--MONGO 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really look forward to your edits and contributions sir. I have seen your great work on other pages, and I look forward to you adding your expertise here. As I mentioned above, as soon as this AfD closes, I am going to push to merge this article, push to rename it to a less POV term, suggest that some material moved to other pages or is removed, and get some really good conservative editors to help edit this page.Travb (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small minority of wikiusers are more detrimental to wikipedia then contributory

A small minority of wikiusers take away more than they contribute to wikipedia. Based on looking at all of some of the users edits yesterday (clear back to when he registered), unfortunatly some wikipedians, in regards to political articles, is definatly one of those wikipedians who destroys much more than he ever creates.

In addition, i have noticed that some wikipedians rarely if ever discusses his deletions on the discussion board.

A handful of wikipedians I want to sit down and force them into a course explain what wikipedia's core goals are. Some wikipedians tops the short list.

I wonder if some wikipedians realize that 99% of his edits are pointless and a waste of time, because they are simply reverted.

Deleting large portions of text which don't fit your POV is pathetically easy. Pre-teenage vandals do this all the time.

Backing up your POV with well referenced, excellent sources, such as we now have here: the US Dept of State Official Website, The National Security Archive, the International Criminal Court, the European Parliament, American Journal of International Law, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Moscow Times, and the BBC News, among others, is much harder, and requires a level of sophistication, hard work, and research that unfortunatly a lot of wikipedians are simply not willing to exert.

It is much easier to delete in mass like a pre-teenage vandal, but it is much less effective, and truly pointless.

I welcome real conservative adults editing this wikipage, to help balance the apparent POV. Some of the best articles come about because rational comprimises between liberals and conservatives, for example No Gun Ri. I am troubled that not a single one of the people who have voted to delete have, to my knowledge, added one sentence to this article. Instead, they have only removed material.

Some of these users use the same old tired excuses and arguments to mask their own POV, removing material with lame tactics instead of helping to build wikipedia. Shielding your POV in wikipedia policy and deletions is easy, promoting your POV while contributing to wikipedia is much more work and effort, which none of these people seem to want to do.

Unfortunatly, some wikipedian's behavior here is a poster child for all of this behavior.Travb (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with trying to make the article better?--MONGO 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like an intellegent person. Every conservative editor here has used wikipedia policy as a weapon and complained on the talk page, and only the leftist wikieditors have actually been writing an Encyclopedia. If I am still not clear enough on this, please let me know. I look forward to your contributions to the article. Travb (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you attack the message and not the messenger.--MONGO 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice, you are welcome to tone down my message as you see fit. I will change my words to third person, instead of naming names. I support WP:GF, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette. That said, these policies often are road blocks to the underlying problems. What I clearly see here is a group of conservative editors who are pushing their POV by using wikipedia policy as a weapon. Unfortunatly it is a tactic that I have seen dozens of times before. In some cases, it is important to point out the messengers tactics. I mentioned you above in some of my "ramblings" as one of conservative editor who could maybe step past the POV warrior mode, and use his considerable research abilities to edit this article and add material which makes it less bias.
I look forward to your hopeful edits to this page. Travb (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time's about up.

AfD five days ends in < 10 minutes for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Thanks for virtually everyone being/trying to be civil. rootology (T) 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke to soon, my patience with these POV warriors ran out last night.Travb (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Morton devonshire 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

Now that the AfD is over, I merged the article American terrorism as per the discussion above. Now we have everything in one place, and can now work on building this article better. Travb (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining terrorism

I think it is important to define exactly what should be in the article and what should not be in the article. "Terrorism" is a label that can apply to many actions.

Does terrorism in this article deal with:

  • political assinations?
  • war crimes?
  • torture?
  • accidental military actions?

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I removed the following, since it is already in the article:

signed: Travb (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom, I about erased this, mistakenly thinking it is as a link farm. Any reason to include these links? Travb (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name suggestions

I like rootology's idea of calling this article "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", and I think this naming should be applied to all countries. Why? Because who _proves_ such a thing? Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? If not, then we never had anything proven. Further, it's clear that getting people to agree on a definition of state terrorism is problematic. That's why I think this series of articles, if they concentrate on noteworthy, well-sourced allegations, will be much easier to develop in an NPOV manner. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey stevie I am really glad you brought this up. This was one issue that I wanted to tackle with this article.
Unfortunatly, I have to disagree with the name change. First of all, in regards to your question: Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? See Nicaragua v. US. Second, Allegation is a weasel word, please see WP:AWW. Instead, is there any name that we can come up with which relays the idea of terrorism, but is less controversial?
Great suggestions though, looking forward to your edits. Travb (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is allegation a weasel word if it's a sourced allegation from a government or notable organization? Further, I'm not interested in making any edits to this particular article. As you can tell by my contributions, I'm working on plenty other things at the moment. I'm just concerned about this article from afar. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism Synonyms

See: thesaurus.com terrorism

Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym.

I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article. Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3-14, (archive)
  2. ^ "Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)". Retrieved 2006-03-31.
  3. ^ Fisk, Robert (2006). "Is The US Provoking Civil War in Iraq?". The Independent. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Fisk, Robert (2006). "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq". The Independent. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)(archive)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism&oldid=69739992"