The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was still no consensus to delete the article. AfD is and has shown not to be the solution - please find other editorial avenues (merge, rename, rewrite, cleanup, etc.) to sort out this mess. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

State terrorism by the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page inherently violates WP:NPOV. Additionally, it has original research problems. The arguments made on the page rely heavily on the opinions of Noam Chomsky, who is not an expert in this field. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to closing admin Keep a look out for socks. Thank you. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed... Beware of Socks I did a quick look at a few people who are involved, and found a few who have less than a handful of non-AFD anti-US debate edits... they definately appear to have been created specifically to participate in these debates. I'm not going to point fingers, but I have suspicions.Balloonman 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further Agreed ... Those who spent more time on here should have their opinions weighed greater then all others, I mean what else are we spending time on here if its not to have our arguments, points and ideas held above all others, right? I think the closing admin will look at the points raised and make their decision based on that alone, this is not a vote, a million socks with no valid point will not trump good reasoning. Much like a million votes citing policy with no explanation, will not trump those who expand and explain. Anti-US debates? I guess it is more "patriotic" not to question your government? Damn those civil rights marchers questioning the law stating they are less then the white man, or those foolish abolitionists, those damn tea wasters throwing valuable tea into the ocean ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that you agree... your first post was on the 12th... and prior to this post over 2/3rds of your edits were on these AFD's.Balloonman 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am agreeing because you as someone with a larger edit pool is clearly more important then myself. Your views, opinions, and participation here is greater then everyone with a smaller edit pool. I do not even know why we have these AfD's when the person with the largest edit pool should just decide what is to be of the article, right? Since this is a discussion, as I stated above, I believe the admin will consider the points by arguement, not user edit pool. I would also love for this AfD to end so I can find something else to dedicate some time to on here, such as more warez articles. --74.73.16.230 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section 1[edit]

  • Comment User:Shalom recently moved it. I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to move it to the correct spelling and to fix all of the redirects. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry about that. I think someone else fixed it already. Shalom Hello 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Completely untrue. Care to support your claims with something specific? I've asked this and have yet to see a valid instance of it that was not fixed right away. And, yes it does attract POV pushing, as evidenced by this attempt to delete this valid article.Giovanni33 09:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: article is now rotten with shabbily-sourced claims, statements cited to nobodies, etc. Giovanni33, repeating your assertions about this article a zillion times does not make them true. CWC 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem is that the article is simply a dumping ground for various allegations against the US that anonymous Wikipedia editors themselves think are "state terrorism". Most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" Those few that do, like the claims by Chomsky and Cuba's government, should be moved to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state.Ultramarine 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Commment. Invalid line of reasoning. If there are notable Allegations of Iranian state terrorism, and you have reliable sources, then create the article. Saying it does not exist and therefore this one that does stand up to this criteria should go, is nonsense. And, we already do have articles about allegations of state terrorism for other states. Regarding your comment about POV pushing, with that logic, we would end up deleting most of WP's articles. If something is not being reported with nuetral language and proper attribution, using reliable sources, then point it out.Giovanni33 09:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, the problem is that very few of the sources mention "state terrorism", those few that do, like the claims by Chomsky and Cuba's government, should be moved to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state.Ultramarine 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To claim that the majority of this article was created by anonymous Wikipedian editors is absurd, and even if it was true (which it isn't), anonymous editors can make valid contributions to wikipedia too. 69.150.51.11 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The CIA is releasing secret information in the next few weeks. Jackaranga 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: This is NOT the 'American wikipedia'. It's Wikpedia in the English language. Sources and articles that are critical of America (or any other country), if they are credible, have a place here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Since when has offending people been a reason to delete an article? If it were, Wikipedia would be a whole lot smaller. Let's get rid of Christianity because it offends Muslims, evolution because many Christians don't like it, etc. And just how does one article in a million "keep shoving it in the face of the wikipedians"? Clarityfiend 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment "This is the American wikipedia"? I think not. EliminatorJR Talk 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Curious coming from an account currently trying to claim that suicide bombings are not terrorist acts. [[1]] Dman727 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. If you voted keep in a previous AfD I did not see it. You did vote delete in this AfD and also this one as anyone can see. You apparently did not care for this article in August and December of 2006 either. Not that it matters, but I thought I would clarify that you were apparently not on the keep side in past debates (correct me if I'm wrong).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, you're wrong.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected--kinda. I did not see that Tom Harrison had voted to keep this in late 2005. However the article was apparently completely different then, and was simply called "American Terrorism" (TH seemed to believe it should refer to domestic terrorism and hoped it would include "...Oklahoma City, the Klan, the abolitionists, maybe tar-and-feathering loyalists during the Revolution" and "native American raiding parties"--in other words he essentially voted to keep a completely different article). Harrison had voted to delete this article in its current (state terror) form twice in 2006, so I think my original point is still quite valid (albeit fairly trivial), but thanks for pointing out the earlier keep vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are only two fundamental questions to be answered here:
  1. Is the article topic sufficiently encyclopaedic to warrant coverage in an encyclopaedia?
  2. Is the particular subject matter of this topic sufficiently notable to warrant its own separate encyclopaedia article?
Firstly, the topic is state terrorism; secondly, the subject matter of this article concerns allegations made that the USA, the dominant world superpower, has engaged in such activities in Latin America, the Middle East and Western Europe. I think even the most ardent deletionist would have to concede yes on both counts, and this article is clearly fundamentally encyclopaedic.
Sorry to say this, but all that the more rational deletion suporters can argue is that there are WP:POV, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH problems, or raise quibbles about the quality of the sources. This has long been accepted as inadequate reason for deletion if the topic and subject of the article are worthy of merit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I really do urge everybody to read the deletion policy more regularly, particularly if you're an AfD regular. As the policy nutshell states: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Hence ((sofixit)).
Most of the other deletion arguments are really nothing more than huff, puff, bluster, hot air and anguished or irate cries of "IDONTLIKEIT" or "it's anti American". Sorry, that will not do as a deletion argument. And full marks to Jackaranga for quote of the week - gave me quite a Victor Meldrew moment :) There are plenty of activities that my particular government have engaged in in our recent (and distant) colonial past, and more recently in conflicts closer to home that cause me great discomfort, that I'm less than proud of. But I will fight to the death for their inclusion because, well, it's encyclopaedic content - that's what we're here for after all.
Jimbo went a bit overboard when he waxed lyrical about "the sum of all human knowledge" (hence we get to know what each Pokemon character eats for lunch, FFS), but this IS human knowledge which is unquestionably important, and will remain in the encyclopaedia. SO, let's stop the deletion nonsense forthwith, close this now and get on with work. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Section 2[edit]

And it also makes baby Jesus cry, I assume. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love you Seabhcan. LOL. Seabhcan for president! 69.150.51.11 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? I thought that was a really mean spirited comment. But I'm not surprised. MoodyGroove 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGrooveReply[reply]
  • Unsubstanciated claims, which I call out as false. Since you are making the claims, its up to you to support them.Giovanni33 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment about Canvassing. There appears to be a problem with WP:CANVASS on this and similar AfD's (i.e. attempts to delete articles which are somehow critical of the US government, particularly ones relating to 9/11 conspiracies), and I think people sending out e-mails to solicit "votes" on these things (a clear violation of the votestacking section of WP:CANVASS) need to be outed and cautioned about doing so in the future. It's a clever way to get around spamming talk pages of like-minded folks, but I think it is completely unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (5th nomination) and the comment by User:Stifle about receiving an e-mail from a particular user (who has also commented here) asking him to comment on that AfD. If editors participating in this AfD have been similarly canvassed via e-mail, I would hope they would acknowledge it as Stifle and BigDT have. If the e-mails were sent to everyone interested in this article, and not just those who have argued for deletion, then of course there is no problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think it's clear that the article is "cited out the wazoo" to defend against charges of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS violations. Clconway 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment/Question. Why is "state terrorism" POV? Is it less neutral than Christian terrorism, Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, or Islamist terrorism? If so, how? I'm sure there are many who would have some problem with one or more of the four varieties of terrorism just listed, but clearly we should discuss them. I think some editors here believe "state terrorism" is some loony left concept, and while it is often utilized by the left it is not a term which only leftists employ. For example look on the White House web page here where Dick Cheney says "Iran has been one of the foremost sponsors of state terrorism in recent years for a very long time." Instead of deleting this article, let's create articles on Iran and other countries as state terrorism is a widely discussed phenomenon that deserves coverage on Wikipedia. Again, this article should be part of a series (after being renamed), and I think concerns about NPOV would probably be addressed if that were the case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unsubstanciated claims, which I call out as false. Since you are making the claims you have the burden to specifically make your case. So far no one has been able to demonstrate where exactly this alleged SYN violation is (so we can fix it!). Censoring this subject is the real insult to Wikipedia.Giovanni33 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are quite substantiated repeatedly on the talk page. There is no need to copy 20 pages of text here to my opinion here (nor yours for that matter). Go ahead and call it false if you wish(lol). As for the burden, the burden is on you to justify your content. While I agree with fixing the article though, however that is generally hopeless as anytime someoe makes a fix, point-of-view artist decend to defend the undefendable. Dman727 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the one proposing the deletion, and those agreeing are suppose to state why. Again stating something specific here for the admin to read and understand would be more helpful then just posting random policy. I keep seeing WP:SYNTH, yet being someone who has read the article and the sources, I am not seeing it, and would like some examples posted so I can get to fixing them, and so the admin can see more then just policy articles, care to post some? --SixOfDiamonds 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If atrociously POV conservative ideological pet-projects such as the Marriage gap article are allowed to exist, this article is not a problem in the least. It at least acknowledges that there is significant and notable opposition to any accusations of state terror by the U.S. VanTucky 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've now added Merge as my first choice because the sources used remain highly partisan and fringe, and thus collecting them all into an article under any name similar to this is undue weight and soapboxing. - Merzbow 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that no reason is given. This, I claim, is evidence that no VALID reason exsits per policy, and its a case of being politically driven desire to censor uncomfortable truths. This is not the Wiki way.Giovanni33 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe he could have used David Gerard's reasoning above. Tom Harrison Talk 02:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, between that insight comment and Gamaliel's agreement with it, there is definitely no reason to delete this article.--MONGO 04:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is not a vote, you need to discuss the topic and the reasons it was nominated. Not just say, "per nom". VanTucky 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They can't discuss it because they have no valid reasons, except saying there are unspecified OR, SYN, to per someoen who says that--which while all untrue, are also not a valid reason PER POLICY for an AfD. This is just an attempt at book burning for uncomfortable truths.Giovanni33 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the victims of state terrorism, it certainly is quite a reality. Maybe you should do more traveling and learning about these realities. If you disagree about what these realities are, then you can't disagree with the fact that many reputable sources claim its real. And, that is all this article documents--those claims. Hence, no valid reason to suppress them yet has been argued.Giovanni33 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section 3[edit]

  • Flase analogy since you cite events that happened in the context of WW2--wheras all the examples listed in this article avoid any war time acts. I actually advocate adding in some acts that occured in the context of war, which clearly are terroristic in nature, i.e. its effect, its argued, was not military targets for military purposes, but civilians for political reasons and to inflict terror (the US dropping of the Atomic bomb, for example)--however this was opposed because it still occured in the context of WW2. So your French analogy does not stand up. Now if you have real allegations of state-terrorism as we have for the article on the US, then by all means, there should be an article on it. However, as it stands France doesn't compare to the US for these crimes--not that it is not without them. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state#France If France were to become a super power and start acting like the US does with it foreign policy practices, then we'd better have a large article to report it. As it turns out its the US that fits the bill--like it or not! WP needs more articles like this, and will win it praise in the halls of academia, and around the world, which often discuss this important subject.Giovanni33 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not want to write State terrorism by France as it would be POV pushing, violating WP:OR, etc. That is the problem we have here, and I have shown that you can take any material relating to a country and push your own view. Also, I guess that since there are nations and people that hate Americans in general, I guess Wikipedia would win praise for keeping such POV material over time. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I didn't think you would want to write an article on state terrorism. Apparently, you think the subject can't be discussed and reported on, no matter how true, no matter how well sourced and documented the article would be. But, it does not violate OR. OR means a NEW, ORIGINAL claim, doing our OWN research from primary sources, or personal eye witness, etc, and then publishing it here. That is OR. That is NOT what this article, or the section on Terrorism by France, entails. Either cite the policy on OR that shows I have a wrong understanding, or retract your claim. When we use published reliable sources that advances the claim, and report that, its not OR. Its what WP is supposed to do. All you've shown is that you can take any material and do your own OR, or SYN. That is very nice, but not very interesting. However, it has no connection to this article. For your argument to be valid, you must show how this article does that. It doesn't. Hating or not hating America is irrelevant. Clearly you seem to be rather sensitive about perceptions of who "hates Americans" but this has nothign to do with this article. I do think people hate the policies of the US govt, as I do--but this has nothign to do with hating Americans. Lets not confuse the two. In anycase, this issue has nothign to do with the merits of this article, even if it seems to be greatly clouding your reasoning on the matter of WP policy and your stance wanting it deleting. Thanks for at least explaining your reasoning, as it makes it clear its not a valid line of reasoning that can be used to support deletion. Therefore, we must default to KEEP, as to delete would be POV pushing, and your own OR.Giovanni33 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, unless you have sources that tie those private, individual actors to the govt. of Saudia Arabia, and you have lots of notable, published sources that use that example to advance an argument that its constitutes State Terrorism by Saudi Arabia. Even better if you have close to a hundred references as this article does.Giovanni33 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • France has committed state terrorism (see the Sétif massacre for just one example). Writing an article about that would not be POV pushing, it would be improving the quality of the encyclopedia. To stay neutral it could be titled "Allegations of state terrorism by France" and of course include the views of the French government and others sympathetic to their views. The same applies to this article. This really isn't that complicated, and the idea that Wikipedia can never write any article (never!) about nation states committing terrorist acts is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen in my time here. Unless delete voters believe that wikipedia should delete its articles on Islamist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, et. al. as hopelessly POV, then in my opinion they reveal a strong American/Western bias in assuming that the concept of "state terrorism" is weird and illegitimate while Islamist terrorism is a simple, non-controversial term. NPOV is extremely important, but I think it's the delete voters who are having trouble with it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 12 year old kid in Gaza, or Iraq, or Chechyna, or Darfur who watched family members killed by the armed forces of the Israeli, Iraqi, Russian, or Sudanese state and you might get more of a sense of why specific articles about state terrorism are worthwhile--even if (shock and horror!) there would be constant difficulties keeping the articles NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allowing users to combine text from other articles and create their own thesis or essays is a bad idea. It becomes original research and Wikipedia becomes a place where users can rant against anything they want. Since anyone can edit here, they do edit and put in what they feel is appropriate (compliance with rules or not). That is why WP:SYNTH must be enforced. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sure, WP:SYNTH must be enforced. But if one can cite reliable third party source that accuse France (or the U.S.) of state terrorism then there is no synthesis going on. I'm fairly confident that one could do that for France (though one might have to look more to French sources) and it's obvious that one can do that for the United States, as there are numerous works describing certain actions of the U.S. as state terrorism (or accusing the U.S. of committing terrorist acts, or similar related wordings). Thus I don't think WP:SYNTH applies here--at least not to the whole article, though perhaps it does to certain sections but we can deal with that once this AfD is over.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please, do make the article about Allegations of State Terrorism by France. It would be a good complement to this article. There are few better examples of state terrorism than France's behavior during the Algerian War of Independence, and its conduct in Indochina would almost certainly qualify as well. If you start that article, I'll try to make some contributions from the little bit I know. An article on France along these lines would be completely legitimate, though the debate about content would obviously be heated, and the same applies to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's fine, go ahead and write it. If it's well sourced and written, then all the better. I'm not sure why it's relevant to whether this article should be kept, though. EliminatorJR Talk 07:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Explain the POV violation. So far I only see unsubstanciated claims that lack any support. The blatant POV violation is the deletion of sourced material through the deletion of this article, which amounts to vandalism. But, if you have any valid claims, then please support them so we can address your argument.Giovanni33 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What is there to explain? The whole article is nothing but a laundry list of quotations from people who think that the US is a terrorist country. If I wrote an article about the Clinton presidency and my only sources were Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, even if I phrased everything in a matter-of-fact way, it would still be a horrible POV piece. --BigDT 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conspiracy theorists? oh please! Accusations of state terrorism by the US government are so widespread in every major university in the US as to be practically clishe. Major figures such as Zinn and Chomsky are not be discredited as legitimizers of notability when in almost every book they allege state terror by the US, and Chomsky is one of the ten most-cited sources in all of academia. However much review for NPOV this article may need, it is simple willfull ignorance to say it is a fringe idea by leftist conspiracy theorists. VanTucky 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: To continue this point I would like people to read the sources in the article, not just the article, since it seems many calling for deletion are attacking them. The sources presented are citing terrorism, the definition in the beginning is to introduce the reader to the idea of state terrorism. I ask you review the items and the sources presented, you will see the sources are stating terrorism took place, not that person X was killed, and the intro supports that as terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that even qualifies as an argument, it certainly isn't a rational one. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United States is not a living person. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but the people being called terrorists are. --BigDT 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who? Luis Posada Carriles was convicted in court of being a terrorist. There is no room for dispute and BLP doesn't apply. The only question was whether he did this terrorism on behalf of his employer, the CIA, or in his free time. However, the man is a terrorist. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if not by name ... alleged terrorist acts usually don't commit themselves. The "United States" as a political entity didn't allegedly commit terrorism - one or more people did. --BigDT 13:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anything in BLP about it applying to unnamed people. The whole point of that policy is that it applies to named living people. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Politically speaking that is not correct. Agents of the government, if he was one, are seen to act on behalf of it internationally. A CIA agent taking part in the bombing of a plane, would be seen as doing it on behalf of the U.S. That seems to be the question however, was he working for the CIA. Cuba has claimed he was, so at least "allegations" would be the correct terminology. This really is arguing over the specifics of the content and not appropriate for this page. As for BLP, he has been cited by many sources including in the article as a terrorist, and convicted of such. Removing the article, because a convicted terrorist is being labeled a terrorist, does not make much sense. I believe that would be on par with removing "convicted killer" or "convicted murder" from a series of serial killer articles. --SixOfDiamonds 13:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)— SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Keep I think it's odd the way so many people here suggest that changing the name will somehow increase the quality of this article, or make it "more encyclopedic". The article as it now stands is a catalog of uncontested, uncontroversial historical events. It describes -- using equally dispassionate, easily verified facts -- the United States' relationship to those events. The reason the name is "State Terrorism by the United States" is for the simple reason that there are a very great many allegations of terrorist actions sponsored by the United States. We could start with Libya, go on to the Congo, there's also Rwanda, Syria, Uzbekistan, and a great many others. These are all rather silly allegations, and they don't have much point. Similarly, there are allegations against the United States made by political parties and private organizations.

It doesn't make much sense to think that changing the name from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of state terrorism" will in any way tighten the page up; changing the title opens up a veritable can of worms in terms of content and valid sourcing, and in fact increases the likelihood that this page will become an even greater point of contention than it already is.

As things are, the events recounted in the article are clearly admitted to by the U.S, widely understood because of extensive reportage, and clearly considered terrorist acts by at least some reliable authorities. Thus, i can imagine no justification to support the change of title to "allegations" -- unless, that is, some folks here would prefer to see the article turn into a jumbled, chaotic mess of unverifiable accusations and allegations. Stone put to sky 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we could have two articles, one Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and one Verified state terrorism by the United States... Well, perhaps not. // Liftarn
Criticism of Noam Chomsky is extensive, so none of his opinions should be considered common knowledge. In this case, it is his particular interpretation of events clearly represent his opinion. I think it would be hard to find any kind of expert consensus on characterizing any element of US military and foreign policy as "terrorist." --Leifern 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not if the expert in question wants to keep their job in a US university. However, such expert opinions are very common outside the US. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely false and libelous. There are countless academics in the U.S., many without tenure, who express radical views. There are several whose jobs are threatened because their academic work is crappy, and that's another matter. --Leifern 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Libel against whom? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll agree it's not libelous, but it's not true, either. In a typical academic situation, you're more likely to be fired for supporting the U.S. government than for challenging them (although neither is going to happen). However, there are a lot of professors whose jobs are threatened who don't do "crappy" academic work. I've known several who didn't get tenure despite doing excellent work. From what I can tell, the reason they didn't get tenure is because their work wasn't quite "excellent" enough in the ways that mattered to the committee making those decisions. In no way does that make their work "crappy", however. Benhocking 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section 4[edit]

Keep and rework An encyclopaedia should contain articles about sytematic allegations made against superpowers. However it should also contain discussions of responses made to those allegations. At present the article seems largely to consist of the allegations. The criticisms re NPOV should be addressed by working on the article to include references to other POVs and the cycle of responses and counter-responses to the allegations made by Chomsky, not by removing the article altogether and pretending that no such criticisms have been made. --Peter cohen 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except when the criticisms are so fringe and absurd that reliable sources haven't even bothered to respond to many of them, in which case it's undue weight to present them. - Merzbow 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that the New York Times and the International Court of Justice are among the cited sources of those "fringe and absurd" criticisms. --Peter cohen 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No international court has sentenced the US for terrorism or "state terrorism" That is an OR statement, as most of the rest of the article. Most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" and usually not terrorism.Ultramarine 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Ultramarine said. These sources never accuse the United States of "state terrorism", only "unlawful acts" or the like. Part of the dispute is with tendentious editors who insist that this actually means "terrorism" when only fringe elements like Chomsky say so. This is WP:SYN and WP:OR. - Merzbow 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you then support a renaming to "Unlawful Acts by the United States"? It seems that would cover your worries and possibly that of others. --SixOfDiamonds 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Delete per violation of WP:OR. The article doesn't even give the definition of state terrorism and most sources used for this article are online sources of dubious reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It leads directly to the article on state terrorism in its section State_terrorism_by_the_United_States#Definition_of_the_term_state_terrorism. As for dubious reliability, we have sources from CNN, New York Times, Znet, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Granma, ABC News, The Guardian, BBC, ICJ, Intelligence Oversight Board, NSA Archive as well numerous books by influential people in the field of world politics such as Chomsky and Ganser. --SixOfDiamonds 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Yes, and that article also doesn't give any sourced definition. Also, majority, if not most (I didn't checked them all), used sources don't talk about state terrorism but about something else and editors who had added them simply interpreted them in their own way. -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I explained this above. Many of the sources given are supporting something a few article stated. Such as articles stating that it was an act of terrorism that brought down the Cuban flight, stating that Posada was arrested, stating that the US arrested him and harbors him etc. These all then link back to one or two articles that are specifically calling the acts, that of state terrorism. So we have a few that make the allegation, and others that support the events. For instance, if you had an article that said the sun exploded, then had articles that provided context and support by stating the sun's max temperature, position, etc. They are not all supporting the complete idea, just supporting the facts that are being presented. A more relevant example is the branding of the US backing of Posada as state terrorism, then an article supporting he worked for the CIA, an article with his admission the CIA trained him, an article of the US letting him off on the charges, an article with Hugo Chavez stating the US is harboring a terrorist etc. Only the original articles presented need to directly state that, state terrorism took place, the rest are to support the facts of the situation and provide greater reading and context. --SixOfDiamonds 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Which sources are branding US backing of Posada as state terrorism? -- Vision Thing -- 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agence France-Presse "At a press conference after his speech, Chavez said that the United States was a "terrorist state" because of its actions in Iraq, Robertson's assassination call and for harboring Luis Posada Carriles, who is wanted for the bombing of a Cuban airliner. "It is a terrorist state. It is a government that violates all rules and behaves shamelessly," he said. "The United States is the champion of double standards. The United States' government defends terrorism. They talk of the fight against the terrorism, but they commit terrorism, state terrorism," said Chavez.

Not sure if this what you were looking for. --SixOfDiamonds 13:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Found another:[9]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday also paid tribute to the bombing victims, who he said were "martyrs of the Cuban revolution" killed by "state terrorism" perpetuated by the United States. He demanded the U.S. government "comply with its own laws, comply with international accords" and extradite Posada.

Hope that ends the hunt for the mysterious allegation. --SixOfDiamonds 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you are looking for (e.g. if you want to see the phrase "this constituted state terrorism"), but I think Robert Scheer's comment that the U.S. was terrorizing Cuba, not the other way around, is a strong implicit accusation of state terrorism (see footnote 57). Ditto for the Cuban VP's comment about those that harbor terrorists (the U.S. in this case) being the same as the terrorists themselves.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on this kind of argumentation, which permeate the whole article, we should include a section on abortion, which has recently been condemned by the Vatican as terrorism.Ultramarine 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I don't follow your (odd) analogy. Why does the fact that the Vatican has labeled abortion terrorism warrant inclusion in this article on state terrorism committed by the U.S.? Maybe you could put it in the Definition of terrorism article, but obviously it would not be relevant here, whereas a prominent columnist like Scheer saying the U.S. terrorized Cuba clearly is worthy of inclusion in this article. You might try making your point in a less opaque fashion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using the logic of this article, I will quote "Parliaments of so-called civilised nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated" as criticisms of United States policy regarding abortion, which he calls terrorism. I am sure I can find numerous pro-life sources arguing the same. How is the Vatican less important than a newspaper columnist? Ultramarine 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, of course, we must add the allegations of various far right and far left groups who feel threatened by the US government. I am sure they claim they are subjected to terrorism.Ultramarine 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the United States government had an official policy about aborting babies in the womb, and if agents of the federal government went out and performed abortions and/or hired people to help them do that, then maybe the Vatican information should be here. Of course abortions in the United States are conducted by private doctors, not the CIA or FBI, so I still don't see the point of the analogy. And we would only include allegations about state terrorism by far right or far left political groups in the U.S. if there was evidence that such allegations were true. It is obvious that Luis Posada is a terrorist and there is strong evidence that the U.S. government supported his activities. Journalist Scheer labeling that support a form of terrorism is thus significant because it is not some wild accusation, but rather merely applying a term to an event or state of affairs which is well documented. So I think the distinctions between the examples you provide and the discussion of Posada and the U.S. in this article are fairly obvious.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could equally well argue that the US allowing abortions to take place is obviously support for abortions. Regarding "truth", that is in the eye of the beholder, Wikipedia uses verifiability. Posada would certainly not agree that he is terrorist and could maybe cause legal problems for Wikipedia if it was added without qualifier to the page about him. The Vatican is a far more important source than a columnist. This is the problem with the OR on this page. Anyone can find some source describing some act labelled terrorism by someone and or not even that, as is true for most of the sources in this article, and claim that this is "state terrorism".Ultramarine 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is your point then that if there are 30 sources that call someone a killer, we cannot say they are a murderer, since of course the 30 sources say killer, not murderer? Saying the US is terrorizing another country is state terrorism, when a state (entity) The United States, uses acts of terrorism on another country, hence terrorizing it. I think this shallow word play goes to show the lack of a deletion argument. --SixOfDiamonds 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither terrorism or state terrorism have any agreed on definitions. Thus, anyone can claim that something bad is terrorism. An article such as this one therefore becomes a dumping ground for every anonynmous editor who personally thinks that something bad is "state terrorism" or terrorism. This article could as well be called Very evil things done by the United States. Wikipedia should avoid articles with very unclear and inherently POV words.Ultramarine 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately here we are reporting what others have said, not what you believe is perfectly defined. God is not defined entirely, yet we do not remove articles containing the word God. Your argument that the lack of definition allows dumping is not based on the article, but your own misconceptions of the article and its sources. The sources permitted ni the article have to allege terrorism, which they do. You have already argued over those sources calling South American presidents and UN speeches to be "fringe sources". However the fact of the matter is those allegations do exist, Presidents of nations are not "fringe" sources of informations, nor are their embassy's or speeches given by them in the UN, nor are countries the US does not like. Your tangent of "evil things done ..." does not make any sense as the sources themselves state terrorism, not "bad bad naughty things" It may do you well to read the sources before continuing this debate as I have already provided two sources and a third on the talk page that cites Hugo Chavez and his embassy as citing the US for 'state terrorism' and others have provided additional sources. --SixOfDiamonds 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the article cites numerous sources not mentioning terrorism because some anonynmous editor personally think this is terrorism. (You confuse me with someone else, I have not made any of the claims you make.) Thus the article includes a flat-earth class conspiracy theory that the US was involved in the Algiers putsch and that this is U.S. state terrorism, citing some strange French source. A private attempt by exile Cubans to assassinate Castro in 2006, an attempt that the US stopped, is listed as state terrorism by the US. A long graphic description of a rape has been added because one the persons involved spoke American English, which is obviously strong evidence of State terrorism by the US. So, yes, a better name would be Very evil things maybe done by the United States.Ultramarine 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm I can expand that section and will. What happened in the situation of La Esperanza as expressed by the sources, is the group (CANF) which was created by Reagan and supported by the government was attempting to plan an attack to assassinate Fidel Castro, their words not mine, yes they admitted it. On board the boat was a known CIA agent and the president of CANF as well as 2 others. Cuba deamed this act, that of terrorism [10]. Thank you for bringing this up, it makes a good source that I found it, and negates one of your points. --74.73.16.230 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Material from the Cuban government is not a reliable source.Ultramarine 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every controversial article on Wikipedia is potentially a dumping ground for anonymous editors to put crap in, and we have numerous articles about subjects which lack precise or uncontested definitions as you well know. That does not mean we delete them. In order for something to be included in this article, reliable sources need to refer to a given act by the U.S. government (and/or their direct proxies) as "state terrorism" (or language along those lines). If an anon editor adds in some nonsense about how the U.S. committed state terrorism against the moon by sending Neil Armstrong to walk around up there, then we would do what we always do when crap creeps in--delete it. The scope of this article can and should be quite specific, and does not refer generally to "very evil things done by the U.S." as you suggest. The article could absolutely be improved and I think more objections to the classifications of these acts as state terrorism could and should be included. Finally, Wikipedia will inevitably have article titles with unclear and POV words. Here's an example well removed from contemporary politics. Although you would not know it to look at the Wikipedia article, the Second Great Awakening is an extremely controversial term among historians. Many historians think grouping early 19th century religious revivals under one neat "Second Awakening" framework is a terrible idea and that the term should therefore be discarded, while others think it is fine to use it. The solution is to keep the article and discuss the controversy, which I think also applies here. If the "U.S. has committed state terrorism" side is overly represented here, lets bring in more sources who advocate a different view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As much as I hate the subject, I have to support a SPEEDY KEEP. This nomination reaks with WP:POINT... and while I may not like the subject, it is a valid one of contention. People who are offended by this page are probably like me, proud Americans. But the reason behind our country's bill of rights is to protect the voices of people we disagree with. I do support renaming it to include "Alleged" or "Allegations" as that would be more NPOV.Balloonman 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Being private does not equate to being fascist. Democratic principals are inherent in this probject's many policies.Giovanni33 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The CIA is admitting to some of the allegations on their website now. ( Just started today. )Jackaranga 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The bill of rights is not required, but the people who are oppsing this do so because they are offended by the idea. They don't like the idea of people being critical of the U.S. in such manner---heck I don't (you only have to check my contributions to see that I am pro-America.) But part of being pro-America is that we defend the right of people we disagree with to be able to share their position regardless of how offensive we find the position. People who want to shut down this discussion, should remember this... it's part of the American Heritage...Balloonman 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, those are now relevations in documents are have been released today by the CIA. This is to be expected, and why this article will only get more information, becoming even more substanciated. Establishment terrorism (state and state-sponsored terrorism) is quite common but difficult to establish mainly because the state's support is always clandestine. It takes some time for the facts to come out, which is why most of the facts we have stem from the Cold War era, although allegations by academics and experts in the subject also contain more recent practices.Giovanni33 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you referring to this press release? VanTucky 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Also I believe the USA did sponsor terrorism, wether the CIA admits to it or not, but still think this article should be deleted, as it offends many here. Jackaranga 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no serious argument that its valid for deleting this well established topic, so I would not worry. Its more than anything just a means to vent by some who don't like it what it exposes. I guess some people feel they have a stake in imperialism and its crimes. Regarding the latest revelations/released documents, they also list illegal behavior modification experiments, including druging of "unwitting" U.S. citizens. Also, assassination plots against Castro, Lumumba, and Trujillo, and kidnapping. But, in order to report on this, we have to have a reputable source that makes the argument that these actions constitute incidents of state terrorism (like the rest of article documents). There is no OR or SYN in this article. All claims are backed up by sources that makes these allegations, and then additional sources can be added as filler to describe the incidents in question. This is, despite repeating it like a broken records, are not OR or Syn violations--which is why they can't support their argument and show otherwise.Giovanni33 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentI don't think there is any discussion as to the truth of this article, but I just think that the US is not ready for this kind of article yet. Maybe in 50 years or so. I think freedom of speech ends when you start to offend so many of the readers, no point shoving their errors in their faces all the time. Nobody is perfect. We can just keep the individual articles, no need for a general "America suck because ..." kind of thing. Jackaranga 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am American (Berkeley/San Francisco), and what is most offensive are the attempts to supress this information, so that people can remain ignorant. WP is not "American" and should not have a pro-US govt. political/ideological bias. Infact since most editors here are English speaking, we have to specifically counter any such systematic bias.Giovanni33 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT Is not a valid reason to delete an article. --SixOfDiamonds 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I think WP:NOR means the article is unsourced, but simply made up from one's own experience. This article is clearly well sourced. I have the feeling that a number of those presenting their opinions here haven't read straight through it before, because neither the sources nor the actual content of the article is ever mentioned. Badagnani 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, WP:NOR does not mean the article is unsourced. Original research is often quite extensively sourced. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Really? The policy has "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" --John 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, really. People take all sorts of source material, sourced up the wazoo, and put it together in an original synthesis. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wow Jayjg, I'd have thought someone who'd been on ArbCom would know better than to get personal, and that attacking users for actually discussing AFD's instead of just voting on them was in poor taste. But as to issue, youre saying that this ENORMOUS ref list with just over 100 citations equals Original research? Seems a little self-defeating to me... VanTucky 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't gotten personal; I said your opinion was incorrect. I'm sure you're a wonderful person. Regarding your point about references, I've already addressed that; original research can be filled with references. In a university setting original research filled with references is strongly encouraged. Here, however, it is forbidden. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I understand your point (and agree) that large amounts of "references" don't mean anything unless they are checked to acutally, literally refer to the accusation at hand (the extralegal use of force against foreign nations and their citizens). But that is exactly what the sources from the following references literally do: Reuters, Aljazeera, The NY Times, LA Times, Miami Herald, Democracy Now!, Chomsky, William Blum, Cornell Law, BBC, Robert Parry, George Washington University, CNN, ABC, and declassified Army and CIA records. All those sources used in the reference section of the article directly make reference to the illegal use of force against nations and citizens for political, ideological, or economic reasons by the U.S. government. They aren't combined to create a case for US state terror, they actually speak of it in their own content. VanTucky 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Exactly, why his statement is false. His line of reasoning is correct, ofcourse. That is policy. However, the claim he is making in relation to this article is false. Those sources establish the claims and hence there is no OR or SYN. Since has failed to give exmples of even ONE single violation of this, then I have to assume he has not bothered to look at article closely, at the references.Giovanni33 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sigh. Aside from the fringe sources like Chomsky, these sources do not accuse the US of terrorism. It is original research to call something terrorism when the source does not do so. This is perhaps the twentieth time me and others have made this very simple point. You cannot take a NY Times article that says something different and leap to your own conclusions, despite how evil you think the U.S. is. - Merzbow 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your soapbox when you do. Here's a quote from the first non-Chomsky reference, "But individual terrorist acts by people living in hopeless despair cannot be compared to the State terrorism of the Israeli government, which has recently slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians." If the sources are biased, and you pick and chose only biased sources, and you write what you want from the sources, then the article winds up biased. I suspect a check through the list of sources will all be the same, they don't say what is claimed in the article, or the sources is so biased itself that it must be directly sourced as to its own suitability. Please, these are sources designed to designate "state terrorism" by the US and Israel, so they do what they intend. The topic could be written responsibly, but if you have no intention of doing so this article should be deleted. KP Botany 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, let me give some literal examples from the ref list here: Blum, William (2003). Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. Noida, India: Zed Books, 290. ISBN 1-84277-369-0. Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration. The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved on July 30, 2006. Michael Ratner. Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9. ^ "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran", Democracy Now!, 08-25-2003. Shahrooz, Kaveh. "All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" (Stephen Kinzer), Harvard Human Rights Journal, 08-01-2005. (June 24 2000) "US 'supported anti-left terror in Italy'". The Guardian. (February 14 2005) "Chavez: US is a terrorist state". Aljazeera. (September 3 2003) "Indonesian VP: United States Is 'Terrorist King'". Reuters. (and BTW: Chomsky isn't a "fringe" source. He's one of the most cited academic sources in the country. Being an anarchist in personal political philosophy doesn't automatically make a figure "fringe") Once again, these all literlly reference either the exact phrase terrorism or it's equal. VanTucky 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now we're getting somewhere. I see the most reliable sources like the NYTimes, CNN, ABC, and so on have all dropped off your now much-truncated list. We are left with Chomsky (a linguistics professor), an Indonesian VP, Hugo Chavez, a book published by an Indian press authored by a socialist activist with no academic credentials (Blum), and a couple remaining cites which you still haven't shown actually accuse the U.S. of state terror. Next? - Merzbow 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Um, you seem to forget that the truth of what these people say is not on trial here, and that it is a reliable reference to the notability of the topic when Reuters, Democracy Now!, published authors and many others report that the US is being accused of state terror. Furthermore, for you to just dismiss Chavez, an Indian press and a major Indonesian politician is xenophobia of foreign sources. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters that respected news organizations and book publishers (like Reuters) acutally found it notable enough to publish that people accuse the US of terror. And once again, Chomsky is not just a linguistics prof. He's published more books on US foriegn policy in the last ten years than anything else, and his assertions (though without a doubt controversial) are heard widely. No one just dismisses him and says, "oh that Chomksy, who cares what he says about the country cause, you know, he's just an MIT linguistics professor." VanTucky 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your remaining sources are either fringe publications, or are reporting on the opinions of fringe or barely notable individuals. Some of the views are notable enough to be presented in the context of another article, certainly, but per policy we do not provide a soapbox for fringe views, for it would be undue weight. An entire article of this name is indeed a soapbox. - Merzbow 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Now you switched your argument, to one of "the sources dont say that, its OR!" to, "Its fringe!" Interesting. I think you should make up yoru mind which argument you want to use. If these allegations are not notable but only fringe, why would a fringe subject be taught and discussed in major universities? I've taken classes where this was assigned reading material. I also notice that you are not telling the truth, above, when you cherry pick and select only some sources to dismiss (which you have no basis to dismiss--are only "American" sources allowed? Who says? They are reliable). For instance, you ignore Dr. Frederick H. Gareau who holds a Ph.D. in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as in political science from the University of Geneva. He is full professor at Florida State University and author of The United Nations and Other International Insitutions: A Critical Analysis as well as an extensive number of articles and conference reports. The book in particular that makes these claims supporting the Chomsky POV is entitled "STATE TERRORISM and the UNITED STATES".Is this OR, still? Oh, wait...new argument: Its Fringe! lol! An abstract of this book can be found here: [11]. Some other writers expressing this POV for example: [12], entitled, Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? See: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html; FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, and http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/foreign.html: Terrorism as Foreign Policy. Ignore all you like. The facts speak for themselves.Giovanni33 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Here is another "fringe, unreliable source," for you--ABC NEWS. But, wait its a US news source! I think that makes it better for you, no? Let me quote it, to make it clear. [13] David Ruppe, writes for ABC, on May 1st, 2001: "In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities."Disagree all you want, but you can't deny what is the allegations staring you, in front of your eyes.Giovanni33 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yawn. My argument stands. No reliable, non-fringe source alleges that the US committed state terrorism, in those words. Allegations that some leaders once had some plans to do something does not "State terrorism by the United States" make. Go create "Allegations that the U.S. planned to commit state terrorism" and we'll talk about it in that AfD. - Merzbow 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those plans are not allegations of plans, if you bothered to read the source--they are aditted to by the planners, which was approved by the higest leves of the Pentagon, the joint cheifs of staff, and only rejected by Kennedy. But, I see you ignore the many sources above which clearly articulate the POV of these academics who do indeed say it in that exact way: that the US has committed acts of state terrorism. I suggest you go back and read those sources. Professor Gareau recommends in his book that "a truth commission be established to investigate and to advertise Washington’s support for state terrorism so that the American public will know what has been done in its name."Its hard to see how you can deny the POV, and insist its all being made up by us editors. Talk about denial!Giovanni33 03:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unindent--Hey, ya'll, don't be quite so harsh, you might not know this, but Blum is one of Chomsky's hero, and Chomsky does have academic credentials:) KP Botany 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then please, start already to work on your proposed article by, of course, adding neutral sources to this article. SalvNaut 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not interested. But, I'll be glad to add opposing sources to articles I do write. And, when I put up articles about controversial subjects--I'm writing one now--I will spend time researching the opposition viewpoints. The latter I am doing right now--it's a lot of work, but it's the responsible way to add a credible and useful article on a controversial subject to Wikipedia. Throwing up only one side is not. KP Botany 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Hence the seventh (or is it the eighth?) nomination. "If we didn't get rid of it next time, it's just a matter of time; round up the posse and we'll outvote them next time." The thing is, it's not a vote and if what you say is correct, that the article is factual and well sourced, this article will again survive the "delete" votes (all of which continue to avoid discussing the actual sourced facts of the article in their comments) of those who simply don't like the content of the article. That is, if the closing admin actually reads the article straight through, unlike so many of those commenting here. Badagnani 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've noticed the same thing, which I find very disturbing as its antithetical to the goals of WP. I think all editors who behaving this way, need to be seriously looked at, as this major breach of a core WP value, going to the heart of what WP is about, calls into serious question their role in it.Giovanni33 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Interesting that neither of you are able to see how your analysis applies equally to the Keep votes or your own behaviour. Do you seriously believe that all the Delete votes are rightwingers? Do you seriously believe that your own personal viewpoint is representative of the entire goals of Wikipedia? If you do, then I would propose you don't understand even the vaguest sense of WP core values. Your disagreement with the reasoning doesn't make the points invalid and your comments illustrate that fundamental ignorance of what Wikipedia is. --Tbeatty 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply to Comment Articles are never deleted because of content dispute, NPOV problems or allegations that some parts are OR. Only in extreme cases where, say, someone writes up his personal theory of everything here on wikipedia do we delete articles. The people who have argued in favor of deletion of this article did not demonstrate that the wiki rules don't allow for this article to be kept. Instead they argued that because in their opinion the article has some problems the article should be deleted.
This is very much a "right wing" attitude, similar to the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Morse v. Frederick case. In that case the conservative judges basically said that despite the First Amendment, if a school doesn't like what a student says outside the school, the school may punish the student (this case was about drugs, but the next case may wel be about sex or some other issue the conservatives feel strongly about).
What is typical about these "right wing" opinions here on Wikipedia or in the real world is that they are inconsistent. In other similar cases you may have a different opinion and then you'll twist the rules in a way to argue the opposite point of view. This attitude is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. Conservapedia may be more suitable for people with this attiude.
The wikipedia NPOV rules can only work if the editors have a NPOV attitude themselves. This can mean e.g. that you have to argue why an article you don't like at all (and has a lot of problems in your opinion) should be kept. This is exactly what I did in case of the first VFD for the pseudoscientific wiki article Heim Theory. That aricle was horrible, completely written from the perspective of the supporters of this theory who clearly don't understand much about fundamental physics. However, this theory is mentioned from time to time in the real world, so there is a place the article in wikipedia. After the article was kept, I put in some effort to correct some problems, but more work needs to be done.
The effect the right wing editors are having on wikipedia is very clear: Wikipedia articles on political topics are often used by people as an example to demonstrate that wikipedia is a biased source for information. Contrast this with Wikipedia articles on scientific topics. These are often used as reference by scientists  :) Count Iblis 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're getting into a general discussion here. Let's stick to discussing the deletion of the article please. VanTucky 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comparisons to "Holocaust denial" by editors such as this one demonstrate what we have to deal with here. This editor in particular has been shown unable to produce a reliable, non-fringe source that makes accusations of U.S. state terrorism (see above discussion). Or even one that seriously discusses the phenomenon of "accusations of U.S. state terrorism". Comparing this to Holocaust denial is ludicrous, given the dozens of books written on that. I sense a desperation to construct notability out of whole cloth here. - Merzbow 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merzbow, myself and several other editors have discussed at length every new criticism of the article you bring up. We have not simply dismissed your points as you seem so prone to do to anyone else's, we argue them. First, the sources are all OR. Then even the ones directly referencing state terror by the US (even sources such as notable published books included as sources, well-known academics, and news articles) are simply not good enough for you. You seem not to care for actually creating consensus (and I don't mean you changing your mind, I mean working towards creating a real, working consensus among differing viewpoints), only to sticking to your ambiguous and constantly shifting objection to any encyclopedic discussion of this topic in mainspace. You continue to assert that major published authors and internationally respected news organizations that comprise just a part of the large amount of sourcing (that, up until your tirade, went unchallenged even by critics of the article) are "fringe sources". That is ludicrous, not a comparison to what is most definitely a fringe view on the Holocaust in every developed nation the world over. VanTucky 06:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I believe the "tirade" is on the part of those who would compare any element of this subject, pro or con, to "Holocaust denial". I'll let the act of comparing any element of this subject, pro or con, to the Holocaust speak to the motives of those who would bring it up in connection with this article. There's nothing more I will say here, you've just said it all. - Merzbow 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A two-sentence comparison is not a tirade by its very definition (try Websters), but that's beside the point. VanTucky 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The leader of a nation, speaking at the United Nations on behalf of his country, is a fringe source? The embassy of a government is a fringe source? I do not get this at all, is a fringe source anyone that does not agree with the US? Since when are South American leaders fringe sources for information? I am almost disgusted at this xenophobia being displayed. --SixOfDiamonds 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Section 5[edit]

Comment Awful suggestion for two reasons. 1 Without a doubt in 2 weeks we are back here on account of "breaches of international law." Clearly somebody is going to cry that we need some court ruling otherwise it is OR. 2 What is wrong with calling acts we see as terrorism when committed by Hamas also terrorism when committed by the US? I know the infamous OR dodge. Well it is becoming silly, pathetic and desperate to invoke OR for situations that clearly are terrorism.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of those naming options have problems of their own, aside from how unwieldly they are (for example international law has developed slowly over the years, so an action taken in the 1920s, for example, may not have been illegal at that time and thus could not be included, whereas it could be included under the "state terrorism" formulation), but I would certainly support a name change along these lines if it was a choice between that and deleting the artice. The title is going to be awkward no matter what, though I still think "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" is a good option and that other articles along the lines of this one should be written for other countries since the "state terrorism" concept has far, far more legitimacy than many editors seem to think. If consensus develops for a name change along the lines suggested by VanTucky, however, I would go along with that (obviously I have been an outspoken "keep" voter, just to make that clear).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to hear from people, especially Jayjg and Merzbow, which sources they would be okay with including in the proposed article, keeping in mind that they would not have mention allegations of state terror explicitly. VanTucky 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reply I work for a software company. As for my "mentality," you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. This is the most egregious example of an editor attacking the motives behind my nomination and, even worse, my character, without really addressing any content issues. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, hey -- cool down, now. There's no reason for personal attacks and incivility. We're all supposed to assume good faith, remember? Stone put to sky 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does your argument mean that any group that is not "al-Qaeda and the Taliban" is therefor not e terrorist organisation? Cool, I bet the IRA, ETA anf Hamas are happy to hear that.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that only radical left wing ideologues have concluded with your predisposed opinion, Bigtimepeace. Bye.--MONGO 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Peter Kornbluh is quite respected (regularly cited and discussed in very mainstream journals about U.S. foreign affairs--he and Mark Falcoff had a well covered argument about the 1973 coup in Chile), and obviously the Guatemalan Truth Commission was not left wing (unless you think the military juntas in that place should have been absolved, but I'm fairly certain that you don't think that). I know absolutely nothing about Ganser and Gareau (other than that they are academics with teaching positions and published books in their field, and therefore "experts" for our purposes), I was just listing out sources as you asked folks to do above. You did not address any of the issues I raised, and responded precisely as I predicted--basically you don't like these sources because you think they are "left wing" and "ideologues" and therefore they don't belong here. I think Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush and Bill Kristol and many others are right wing ideologues, but things that they say and arguments they make certainly warrant inclusion in any number of articles that we have. If no source which you think is "left" and which I think is "right" were allowed into this encyclopedia then it would be pretty difficult to write an encyclopedia. Maybe you're not really arguing that all sources that have a leftist bent (whatever that means exactly, since one man's leftist is another man's centrist) are invalid, but it sort of sounds like it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I'm arguing that no neutral authority of international recognition has ever decreed that the U.S. is a terrorist state or has engaged in state sponsored terrorism. Tossing a few names of a few people that have this opinion is no different that citing people who claim they have been abducted by aliens. The opinions of these few persons you mention are just that, opinions, and in the case of Chomsky at least, self taught opinions, with no earned degrees or academic credentials related to their opinions on the matter.--MONGO 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain exactly what a "neutral authority of international recognition" is and why that is the only kind of source you will accept? What part of WP:RS are you relying on here? Because I just don't see what Wiki policy you are invoking, or what would even constitute a "neutral authority of international recognition" as you see it (certainly not the UN, which many countries perceive to be non-neutral on many issues, including the U.S). Though Chomsky is arguably "self-taught" in this issue, he has published on it widely for decades and has been cited thousands and thousands of times (even by those who disagree with him). Thomas Friedman went to graduate school to study the Middle East, not globalization, but by virtue of work he has done since and books he has published he has clearly become a reliable source on the latter topic even though many passionately disagree with him. I think the situation with Chomsky and Friedman, from our perspective, is quite analogous and the refusal to accept that Chomsky is a valid (albeit highly controversial) source quite frankly mystifies me. Anyway there are many other sources here besides Chomsky as has been pointed out repeatedly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chomsky claims the ICJ findings were akin to a finding of terrorism, yet that is NOT at all what the ICJ stated, not in the least. He equates it with a finding of terrorism...it is his opinion, not shared by the UN or other entities of a neutral authority of international recognition. I guess if the UN or EU did declare the U.S. was a terrorist state, that would be the main source to cite by those who want to use Wikipedia as a place to prove their a priori premises. The fact that none of these neutral authorirties have, all we can state is the opinions of others, most of which are not experts in their fields, but instead people who have some really radical opinions on such matters. I see the same radical opinions on pages related to 9/11, where people wish to POV push an unproven conspiracy theory based on their a priori premises.--MONGO 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is BS whereas there is pretty good evidence that the US has committed actions that constitute "state terrorism" (as has, I hasten to add, just about every nation in the world). But let's drop this since we're not getting anywhere. Just a quick question though--would you be more okay with this article if we went back to the "Allegations of State terrorism by the United States" title? I know myself and a number of other of keep voters are in favor of this, and I would think it would address some of your concerns about sources and show immediately that Chomsky et. al. are making allegations with which many others disagree. This is the only possible path which I can see us getting close to a consensus on so I'm wondering if you and other delete voters would be okay with this (I agree it should never have been moved to this title in the first place).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a consensus to delete this article, not rename it. The reasons stated for keeping it are the same as I Like It. I have yet to read any keep vote that has stated that this article can ever conform with our policies which ensure we don't violate synthesis of sources to promote a position and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Instead, what we have are keep votes that state that Chomsky's opinions matter over the those that have never been decreed by any international body: that the U.S. is a state sponsor of terrorism. Has the U.S. committed questionable acts...of course they have...but none as capricious as what would, in the normal scheme of things, constitute terrorism. A name change to Allegations is worse because then it is an open door to cite every Tom, Dick and Harry with an allegation. If the article is kept, it is likely to continue to have a NPOV tag as well as other tags on the top of it, forever, and that is a bad way for Wikipedia to go.--MONGO 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We must be seeing radically different pictures. I see a consensus to keep, esp. given that most of the deletes simply faile to provide justifiable rationale; most are with no argument at all, and just throw up claims of OR, POV, SYN, that have been refuted, and thus shown to be false. They have failed to answer why this means the article should be deleted, too. According to policy this is NOT a valid readon to delete. Its clear they just don't like Chomsky or the many other scholars who express this quite valid POV, which this article documents very well. It seems they have confused their own POV about the merits of the reports with the reality of the reports itself. Because you don't agree with their arguments does not mean they don't exist, or that we WP editors are committed OR by citing them. Its a very notible POV, based up by volumes of published facts, and over a hundred references documenting the claims the article reports on (i.e. doesnt make up).I also point out that the arguments to keep have been explained, thus it does not amount to "I like it." Per WP policies on deletion, the side that wants to delete the article must prove the case, i.e. VALID reasons why the article must be deleted. No one has done this, and only expressed claims (that even if true), could be fixed in the article. Thus, the stance to delete has been shown to be false. Consensus is to keep--like before.Giovanni33 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giovanni33, this article will forever have a NPOV tag on it since edit warriors like yourself will never allow it to be anything other than a depository for every single weak and ridiculous comment made by every radical crackpot who "thinks" the U.S. has acted in a terroistic manner. They take a few incidents and extrpolate them as a form of terrorism. This article will never be able to present a neutral treatise on this subject. I have yet to see a single person demonstrate that the U.S. is on any list designating it as a terrorist state. When you can do that, let us know. The fact that this article needs 100 sources is clear demostration that it is a weak article, full of POV and hopelessly mired in its own cesspool of POVism. The only way this article could be kept is if the closing editor looks at just the number of keep votes and fails to examine the overt violations of SYNTH and NPOV. The arguments to keep have not been explained, with no less than three editors chiming in with such comments as "Don't be stupid". I see maybe three or four rationales to keep that have a small measure of merit, yet fail to address the policy violations this page represents.--MONGO 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument is very weak on a number of levels. First it consists of name calling: "POV warrior," and "radical crackpock." The claim itself by the name calling unsupported. Its just your unsubstanciated POV. But, besides it being an ad-hominin fallacy, these claims are easily dismissed as false when these so-called "crackpots" turn out to be in reality highly respected and internationally recognized scholars, who do a very throughough job at documenting an abundance of established facts which show that US has been been involved in state terrorism to varying degrees. And in many cases the perpetrators have admitted it. Many of the claims are supported by the US govts own documents which have been released. What your name calling really amounts to is: "I don't like what Chomsky says, so I'm going to call him a 'crackpot." Like I said, very weak.
But there's more. You claim that any alleged POV problems will never be fixed because I won't allow it? Wow, I never knew I had so much power! hehe By that logic, all of WP is doomed, since, by extension, I could very well "not allow" anything to be what you want it to be, and thus, by extension, everything is to be deleted? As you can see by my reducio ad absurdem, your argument is the real ridiculous thing being said here--not the claims that the US has been accused of state terrorism, nor that these accusations are notable.
The fact is that you disagree with consensus, and want the whole thing deleted, even though its well sourced. And, its really the WP community is not allowing you. Not just me. Its the WP policies that are not allowing you to make the changes you want. Welcome to the club! Now, if you have a real issue that needs to be fixed, then make your case on the talk page. Point out specifically what the problem is with reference to WP policies. Calling reputable scholars like Chomsky "crackpots" won't work. But, any reasonable objections, and real policy violations will be taken seriously, and will be addressed and fixed. I, like the other editors, agree and abide by WP policies of NPOV, V, and the rest. And, that is why this article can not be deleted. Again, address the particular problem, and prove your case. If you are right, you will win consensus. If you are wrong, and your arguments are just very weak and invalid (as your argument to delete is), then I can only say that you must respect consensus, must abide by WP policy, and that you may be too ideologically attached to accept the nuetrality and factual veracity of this articles claims, and therefore, unable to see that it violates no policies by reporting on these claims.Giovanni33 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Okay, thanks for clarifying your view on that, I guess I see this heading more for a "no consensus" but we'll see.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that many of the keep votes are attacking people who vote delete, let's try to keep it civil here, people.

Having looked at some of the 'sources' of the article, I find the nom's reasoning compelling. I would also ask an admin to go through this and remove the arguing that has nothing to do with the deletion nomination, such as users sniping at each other and so forth. Jtrainor 12:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not American, in fact I protested against the war in Iraq like many other people in Frace, I don't believe in the "Axis of evil" and yet I feel this article should be deleted, because it does not adress specific issues, and seems rather like a collection of misdeeds, sure they are true, but why keep this general blaming page. It's obvious many are offended, there is no denying that, why continue offending them. It's just easier to keep the individual articles. Everyone outside the US knows the USA has sponsered terrorism, maybe we should delete this page and make a category instead "Category:Terrorism by the USA", and put the individual articles in it. Is there an article called "Acts of racism by Germany" ? no, and yet you could write a whole book about them there are so many (and they are referenced in individual articles). Jackaranga 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section 6[edit]

In the real world ... we're never going to get close to that ideal. Not even in the same Solar System.
Here's a few quotes from this AfD:
  • "no legitimate basis that this article can even seriously be considered for deletion. To do so would be a an extreme violation of NPOV ..."
  • "yet another bad-faith nomination"
  • "Keep and 24 hour block User:Pablothegreat85 for WP:POINT"
  • "Keep. Don't be stupid."
  • "this sort of disruptive behavior [by the] nominator should not be permitted"
  • "If that even qualifies as an argument, it certainly isn't a rational one."
  • "Articles like this are essential to exposing the evil empire that Bush evil empire has created ... [should not be] deleted by facist Republicans"
  • "Why don't the rightwingers go to Conservapedia if they don't like the articles here?"
  • "I absolutely equate the notability of accusations of US state terror with ... Holocaust denial"
  • "I propose a permaban for every editor that starts another AfD within twelve months"
With attitudes like this, it's very hard to believe Wikipedia will ever get acceptably close to NPOV in an article on this topic. Worse still, even if we did achieve NPOV, NOR, etc, it wouldn't last a day.
Wikipedia should report accusations about the US by Noam Chomsky, Persian Kleptocrats, Latin American dictators etc ... but only in the articles about Anti-americanism, Noam Chomsky, the Khomenite regime, the Latin American dictators etc. Retaining this article guarantees (1) having a bad article and (2) a waste of lots of editors time on that article.
Oh, and to save all those POV-warriors an edit: I am neither an American nor an admirer of the U.S. government. (Also, I !voted in #Section 1.) Regards, CWC 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree, a lot of silly and nasty invective has been thrown around here, and although I have not looked through the whole AfD I would not be surprised if more of it came from the keep side which I support. But this AfD will not be judged based upon the rhetoric of those accusing deleted voters of being "facist (sic) Republicans", but rather by the reasonable issues/concerns that have been brought up by both sides. The admin closer will obviously know to ignore comments like those you've pulled out above, or comments from the other side calling the keep side "idiots." I don't see why rehashing over-the-top-rhetoric really helps us. Both sides need to turn down the rhetoric, but the AfD will be judged on the rational arguments presented by both sides--not on which side was more "calm" or "dispassionate."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the reason for those comments was because it appears that this will be the sort of article that's nominated for deletion over and over, with the hopes that the audience will be more receptive to deletion each time. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said!Kukini hablame aqui 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, that's not the point I was trying to make. I'll see if I can do better:
  1. The tone of this AfD discussion shows that lots of people have extremely strong feelings about this article.
  2. So lots of people with strong beliefs are going to edit the article to reflect those beliefs.
  3. Those strong feelings will almost certainly result in a cruddy article.
  4. That will suck up lots of time and energy that could be better used elsewhere at the project.
  5. The solution is to not have the article. Instead, we should cover this topic in Anti-americanism and the articles about those calling the US a terrorist state. (Maybe have a category named (say) "Allegations of US State Terrorism"?)
Cheers, CWC 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that the fact that an article is controversial and will always be edited by folks with strong points of view is simply not a reason to delete it--we have many articles like this, and with highly politicized topics it is often unavoidable. Sticking this in "anti-Americanism" is a really bad idea, and would provoke far greater POV problems than this article does. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy does not make one "anti-American." I have very large problems with much of US foreign policy over the 20th century and down to the present (including but not limited to some of the points mentioned in this article), but this does not make me "anti-American" as there are many other aspects of the U.S (where I live) which I think are great (see, for example, the Wu-Tang Clan). Anyhow constant POV disputes are not a reason for deletion, and this article does not fall under the category "anti-Americanism."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. If not deleted, it needs to be "allegations of..."--SefringleTalk 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's any possibility of consensus here, I think it only lies with changing the title to "allegations of..." That seems to be the first choice of many keep voters and the second choice of many delete editors.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with this proposed name change. All it would achieve is the insertion of weasel words into the title. The current title is fine, notwithstanding all the anguish it seems to cause some patriotic American editors. --John 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you say, Red herring? Take the Euro-blinders off for a moment, and consult WP:SYNTH.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it's your favourite policy, and I know it almost by heart. Can you give an example of where the article currently breaches the policy, in your view? In my view WP:WEASEL is pretty important too; as others have said, we don't have Allegations of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Our readers are pretty smart and they don't, in my opinion, need to be spoon-fed (in the title!) your or my opinion on whether the subject of the article is in some sense "true" or not. --John 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, that's not correct, I want it written correctly. And if you find any as crappy and one-sided as this written about any other country, please nominate it for deletion, too. KP Botany 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry...then add to it...demonstrating a verifiable different perspective. Deleting something that you disagree with is not within wikipedia culture and standards. Kukini hablame aqui 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, I don't see any article titled "State terrorism by Iran", "State terrorism by Libya". In fact, I'm not aware of any other "State terrorism" article, so I think Kukini's argument is more against the article than for it. Personally, I think "Alleged" makes more sense. I'm not really keen on having it deleted, either, because there is a lot of interesting information here. Benhocking 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To increase your awareness...take a look at this article: State-sponsored terrorism. All articles like this need to go if this one goes, no? Kukini hablame aqui 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, thanks for the link. Now, why do you think the US merits an entire article of its own, but those other nations do not? Note that the US is also already mentioned in that list. Also, this article seems to have accumulated a lot of cruft that is arguably not terrorism (as in it does not seem to inspire terror). Benhocking 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could see an article for each and every nation with verifiable sources, including the US. Likely the US should be removed from that list, with only a reference to the article y'all are trying to delete? Kukini hablame aqui 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose we're defining "article" differently, then. (Either that, or I'm missing seeing something again that actually is there - a real possibility.) When I say "article", I mean a page of its own, like the one we're talking about here. All I see for those other nations are "subarticles" that are short blurbs on the same page as the original "superarticle" (forgive me for using math-like terminology). Also, I am not trying to delete it. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency that I see. I think there's a lot of good information here. However, I do question to what degree some of it qualifies as NPOV and I also question to what degree some of it qualifies as "terrorism". Benhocking 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly, people have put much more time into the US article than the other subarticles. I see no reason to delete one article and leave all the subarticles using the same language regarding other countries standing. As for terrorism, if you look over that article, you will learn of many definitions that exist. I recall a leader referring to 9/11 as the "first terrorism on US soil" shortly after it happened, despite the fact that terrorism has occurred on US soil for a LONG time (note the Murrah Building, for a widely agreed-upon example). I feel that this article should stand or all articles that mention ANY form of "state terrorism" by any state should be deleted along with it. Kukini hablame aqui 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I suppose one answer would be for people who feel this is an injustice to put effort into those other subarticles, perhaps expanding them into full-fledged articles. As for using Bush's definitions of "terrorism"... let's just say I'd rather stick with more traditional definitions. To that end, places where we've staged coups and no terror was intended would not seem to qualify as such. I would think they would belong in their own article. Benhocking 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As pointed out above, see Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka in particular but also Terrorism in Syria. There also apparently used to be an article on State terrorism by Guatemala which got redirected (I don't know the history of that). It's unsurprising to me that the biggest article along these lines is for the U.S., there's generally better coverage of U.S. (and British) concerns on the English wiki, even when it's about something negative.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading the above arguments, my leaning is for a the term "allegations" to be in front of all articles about state terrorism. The retitling should clean up some of this problem. Kukini hablame aqui 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Renaming the article "allegations" will not change anything. Look at the 5 other votes for deletion, many of those were when the article had "allegations" in the article. (3 of the 6) Also look at the history of this article in the archives. The same massive deletions and edit wars were also there when the article was called "allegations". There was recently a straw poll about changing the title to "allegations", and there was no real consensus either way.
The bottom line is that a group of Americans and pro-American wikipedians will fight for this article to be removed--regardless of how many sources it provides and how encyclopedic the article is. If you look at the AfD history and edit history of many of the above wikipedians, a person can see a clear POV bias, which two words "allegations of" will never satisfy.
My God, the article has 117 sources right now, how many wikipedia articles have this many sources? I can't think of a single Wikipedia article with this many sources. 68.90.165.237 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not it will "change anything", renaming the article to "allegations" might be the right thing to do. How can such a change not be seen as more neutral, and if we're striving for NPOV, then it sounds like a good idea. Also, as Kukini has pointed out, it would be a step towards providing consistency across articles of a similar nature. Benhocking 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem here is that these allegations are very notable and in no way fringe. Nor are the many, over 100 sources, used to document these very well known facts, and the quite solid pov that the US has engaged in State Terrorism. Notice I said FACT. Yes, these facts speak for themselves and are the basis for the POV the article reports on. 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe, but these allegations are of a completely different league.Giovanni33 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The allegations are clearly notable--I think you are the first to raise the problem of notability here, and I think most would disagree with you. Also there is far too much material to merge to Foreign relations of the United States. The notability of this topic means that it obviously warrants its own article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The allegations are not notable in and of themselves as the topic of a dedicated article; this article synthesizes published material to make it look like they are. Any useful material can be merged.--Cúchullain t/c 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, i'd like to point out that the very furor over this article demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that this particular phrase -- "State Terrorism by the United States" -- is a hotly contested, passionately argued international issue of some fame and vigour.
Do we need anything else to demonstrate that an article by that name needs to exist? Of course not. The proof is already here, on this very AfD; people throwing words like "fascist", "idiot", "leftist" and "communist" at each other are not arguing over whether or not an issue is notable enough to be included, nor whether an issue has any basis in real-life events, but instead over the political and moral implications of those actions and events.
This page deals with the perceived moral standing of the United States in its war on terrorism; it speaks to the very heart of U.S. policy abroad, and consequently has become a sounding board for all who would like to propagandize and whitewash their favorite version of history, whether capitalist, socialist, rightist, leftist, fascist, communist or anarchist.
I have been a regular, contributing editor to this page, now, for some two or three years; for my part, i have worked to guarantee that actual ideological excesses -- from either side -- and silly radical diatribes -- from either side -- do not find a place there. That is in contrast to many of those who have voted here, who regularly appear on the page and have done nothing -- quite literally, nothing -- except delete material based upon petulant demands for sources.
It is they who have most shaped the evolution of this page, not me. I would be very happy for the page to appear "more encyclopedic", but the constraints and roadblocks that have been put in the contributors' ways have forced us into the current format, which is nothing more than a list of clearly enunciated cases where the United States is popularly condemned as having participated in acts of State Terrorism.
Perhaps the page could take a different direction; perhaps we could make it "more encyclopedic" if the artificial constraints on sources and rhetoric were lifted. I really don't know. I can testify, however, that changing the name will in no way alleviate these problems. I can further testify that the original name change -- from "State terrorism..." to "Allegations of..." -- was never a consensual agreement, and in fact was undertaken despite the loud and vocal opposition by close to half of the contributing editors of that time.
Changing it "Allegations...." did nothing to stop the AfDs or outcry against the page; the only thing it did achieve, in fact, was to introduce weasel-words into the title of the topic. As has been pointed out above: Wikipedia does not have an "Allegations of Bigfoot"; nor does it have "Allegations of Islamist Terrorism" or "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", and both of these pages could, in the correct company, provoke precisely the sort of indignation and outrage that the "State Terrorism by the United States" page currently does.
Instead, on pages like "Armenian Genocide" and "Islamist Terrorism", competing viewpoints are introduced in the body of the article to balance the rhetoric. The title is taken as nothing more than the statement of a topic, and any controversy surrounding it is presented within the article's content. That is as it should be here, too.
Please believe me that i would be very happy, as a contributing editor, to allow such competing viewpoints to be included. Unfortunately, the page has currently reached an impasse: editors on the page who wish to expand the scope of the page to be more congenial to the U.S. are holding those who present evidence of US crimes to one set of standards while attempting to establish new rules for themselves.
I admit that the page would do well with a bit of re-working; however, after having been present on it for some two or more years, i can assure the wikipedia staff that such superficial alterations as changing the name will do little -- in fact, nothing -- to improve its quality or assuage the attacks against it.
The only effective remedy i can imagine would be if those who would like to see more balance to the page were to recruit spokespeople who were able to actually contribute, people who are more astute, familiar with standard research practices, and able in their grammar and writing than those who are currently working the page. As things stand, those editors on the page who would like to push for its deletion -- or for "more balance" as they would like to see it -- have only succeeded in painting themselves into a rhetorical corner: sources cannot be introduced unless they specifically mention "State Terrorism by the United States" or work to demonstrate evidence that is referenced in such a statement; only such citations as speak directly, specifically to such sources are allowed; and no extrapolation from events to established definitions -- no matter how widespread and mundane those definitions might be -- are allowed.
Obviously, if these standards are forced upon some contributors then they must be held strict for all. This consensus -- regardless of how messy it might seem -- has now been established there for at least a full year. Any attempt to deviate from it has been met with mass deletions by a small group of editors, each one of whom appears on this AfD with a vote to "delete".
From the very beginning of my presence on this "State Terrorism" page i have pushed for a re-examination of the standards used to guage material for inclusion and commentary; i have been repeatedly and unremittingly denied even a discussion, much less reform. For the moment, my suggestion to the Wikipedia community is simply: let it be; and for those of you who feel like the page would do with a bit of elbow-grease and know-how, i would urge you to please come and contribute. Stone put to sky 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Can it be proved that he has accused the US of terrorism? Yes.
  2. Is he correct? Depends on your personal bias and definition of "terrorism".
  3. Is he reliable? As a barometer of opinion of the political left, probably.
  4. Does he have his own agenda? Hell, yes.
Rightly or wrongly, WP places most emphasis on (1) above. The article might benefit from a more in-depth analysis of motives for accusing the US of terrorism, but at worst that's a POV or COPYEDIT tag, not grounds for deletion. EyeSereneTALK 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop the wikilawyering. POV essays are covered by WP:SOAP.--Mantanmoreland 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. http://www.globalresearch.ca - A personal site run by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky.
Ridiculous. GlobalResearch is not a "personal site" by any means; it has a full staff of editors and web-admins. It is read on three different continents (Africa, Western Europe, and North America); among its contributors it counts former state department and CIA personnel; tenured professors of wide repute; published historians and political scientists; and widely regarded grassroots political activists. Stone put to sky 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its proprietor peddles numerous 9/11 conspiracy articles prominently on the site. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy nuts, which is why Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche was decided the way it was. Which mainstream news organizations have recognized this site for its accuracy and fact-checking, as WP:V requires? - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He has been published so this isnt up for debate.
  • Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
And here is your list:
  • Zed Books
  • Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
  • Institute for International Co-operation, University of Ottawa
  • University of Ottawa Press
  • Faculty of Social Sciences, Dept. of Economics, University of Ottawa
  • Universidad Catolica de Chile, Instituto de Economia
  • Madhyam Books
  • Palgrave Macmillan
All on international politics and economics. Further he is quoted in over 100+ other books by a variety of authors in a variety of languages on international politics and economics.[21] Basic research would have showed you this.--74.73.16.230 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An economics professor with a side job as a 9/11 conspiracy peddler. Notice that none of his work related to the subject of this article has been published in any major publication or by any major press. In fact, his new book, "America's "War on Terrorism"", appears to be completely self-published. This is the definition of a crank and the epitome of the type of junk we need to keep out of articles. - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans - A non-notable political blog called "What's Left".
Gowans is a professional political journalist and published in several national publications. Blogs by professionals writing in their field of expertise are allowed. Stone put to sky 04:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL. Sorry, that clause is interpreted very strictly, usually only for prominent academic researchers writing about their work. By your standard, every post by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga on the Daily Kos is reliable for inclusion anywhere. Why stop there? Let's include every post by Rush Limbaugh from his blog. They are all professional political journalists. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those are academics. You just wrote "usually only for prominent academic researchers writing about their work." Then you go and ignore the basis of what you wrote. Your love of tangents is amazing. However more rational arguments would be welcome, perhaps like those that actually adress you own points. --74.73.16.230 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, I was illustrating the wrongness of Stone's argument by simply applying it to other bloggers aside from the one he's picked to support his side. Gowans is a "Canadian writer and political activist based in Ottawa" as far as I can find, which makes him as much of an academic as Rush and Markos. - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

\# http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - Personal website of a geography and Native American Studies professor nobody's ever heard of.

Once again: nonsense. The page has been published in a major publication (ZMag.org), translated into 10 different languages, lists its sources, and is compiled by a professional researcher in a related discipline. Stone put to sky 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geography and Native American Studies. Sorry. And "Z Mag" is an amateur activist magazine subtitled "The Spirit of Resistance Lives". Nope. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The depth of people quoting Zmag for published works seems to disagree with your understanding of how well known they are. [22] Again basic research would have shown you that articles published in Zmag are accepted on a variety of subjects by a wealth of sources, apparently over 100 authors. It is becoming tiring disputing everything you do not like or never heard of especially when it comes to things, you seem to not even research. Can you even name 10 organizations attached to the UN for their work? --74.73.16.230 00:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because every book on Amazon is a reliable source. Can I start quoting from Sean Hannity's books then? - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - Website of a French activist group nobody's ever heard of.
Once again, utter nonsense. Stone put to sky 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. At least we agree on something. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Name 10 other French groups of this kind you have heard of and 3 pieces of work they have done. I mean, since you have not heard of it seems to be your rationaliztion, you must have a large knowledge of French activist groups that are attached to the United Nations. Please proceed with showing why groups you never heard of is valid. --74.73.16.230 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French activist groups are not reliable sources for academic political analysis. Are you trying to get this article killed? On second thought, please proceed... - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to poitn out, again, the characteristic "delete" vote comes down to the same thing: "too much OR and SYN." I note these--even if true--are not substancial reasons that would validate per WP policy, the deletion of this article. Of lesser import, but equally noteworthy, is the fact that these claims remain unsubstanciated, as well. The person making this claim has the burden of proof to support the claim. All such attempt to make such arguments have been shown to be false, and refuted. But, again, its moot because even IF true, they would not validate the deletion of this article per WP policies. This is a clear KEEP.Giovanni33 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giovanni33, how many times are you going to vote here? Stop bolding your keep comments in some effort to filibuster this Afd.--MONGO 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats is not duplicate vote, as that is part of my commentaries that this Afd is a clear KEEP, per the explantion above. The bold's purpose is legitimate and not placed in front with a #. But, you should know this is not about voting. This Afd is not a vote and its not decided that way. Its about the arguments. Thats why its a clear, very clear KEEP.Giovanni33 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giovanni33 - If you are so certain this article will be kept, then why badger people here? Is it because the article violates policy and you feel that your "keep" !vote comments will help the I like it! cause? At AfD, articles that are violators of policy typically get deleted. Therefore, it is very clear that the result will be an obvious DELETE. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not attempt to silence the discussion, this is not a vote, its a discussion on the article. Asking someone to not discuss it is against the very point of this page. And please, stop the WP:XYZ stuff if you cannot even give an example, its old, the admins are not fools. --74.73.16.230 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note - this account was created ten days ago. - Merzbow 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop trying to discount this voice. If you look at her contributions, it is most definitiely not a SPA and thus her new user status has no bearing, especially considering she is using thoughtful arguments relating to policy and not just rambling on semantics like most newbies. VanTucky 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment (entire article) - I think that the mere existence of this book, written by Prof. Dr. Frederick H. Gareau, who is clearly an expert in this topic, justifies keeping this article. In case of wiki science articles, we use more much more strict criteria than wiki politics articles. But even in these cases, we do not delete articles on controversial or disputed topics provided they are notable. If the topic is notable, then the way the material can be presented depends on the expertise of the people who have published on it.

Clearly it matters if we are talking about a notable topic that has no support whatsoever in the scientific community, or if there is some support or if there is a lot of support. A legitimate objection to this article could be that it is presented in a way that suggests that some conclusions have wide support while in fact it has not. But that's certainly not a ground on which one can delete this article.

We have wiki aticles on Homeopathy and Astrology. Climate science skeptics come here to write articles on the "great global warming swindle" documentary. We don't delete these articles just because they are 100% proven nonsense, so why would we delete articles on notable topics that are clearly not 100% nonsense? Count Iblis 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More