This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Controversial Wikipedia articles usually have a section with opposing views. So I am working on one. Suggestions welcome.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)If this article were a comprehensive examination of current and past US foreign policy then some of your points would be relevant as responses to criticism. However, this article lists some examples of terrorism perpetrated by the US gov't, and as such, going in the order of your bullet points: 1. the reasons given for the underlying US policy which includes terrorism; 2. the alleged lack of US terror against democratic gov'ts (not true in 1953 Iran, against Arbenz, Chile 1972 and many other examples); 3. the number of victims (again, not true since WWII, since the US achieved superpower status, the US has been number one in number of people killed as part of its wars, offical and unofficial); 4. the lack of US media focus on other conflict zones; 5. the examples of US soldiers committing atrocities without official approval; 6. the alleged current "reformed" activities of WHINSEC; and 7. the policies of other friendly nations, are all irrelevant to the documented terrorist actions in the past. Think about it, we are talking about history not how good or bad we think we feel about current policy or about the context of other policies. Having said that, I am all for including opposing views and if there are pertinent criticims of the article I for one would be all ears.-- NYCJosh 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You points may help explain some points of US policy. However I find far more important the influx of anti-communists from Eastern Europe at the start of the Cold War, and their effect on US foreign policy through diaspora politics in the United States, as well as their integration into American intelligence services. See for example Blowback - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy. -- Petri Krohn 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the first two points are great and should be included in some manner, however the bottom four seem to stray, if they are in direct relation to a particular claim it should be noted. The last point given seems the most far off. Saying soldiers kill people often, but they are not sanctioned to kill civilians would seem obvious, just attempt to connect which areas you are defending and it will look tighter. -- SixOfDiamonds 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
NYCJosh is right in all of his points, and he doesn't need "sources" for them because they are general observations about directions you want this page to be taken. As your response to his point indicates, your bullet points above have little -- if anything -- to do with the page in its current form, but instead introduce an entirely different set of debates about what can be called terrorism, what actions.atrocities/killings does the U.S. ultimately deserve responsibility for, what is the nature of the international legal situation, and so forth.
Most of them are far beyond the scope of this page. The only thing that this page is concerned with -- as NYCJosh deftly pointed out -- is historical facts: what did the United States do, when did it do it, and how is it that people perceive the U.S. as responsible. Your points don't address that, but instead deal with meta-questions: What is responsibility? What is "terrorism", and why is it bad? and so forth.
Once again: i am totally in favor of including opposing viewpoints; if you had been around when i was dealing with NuclearUmpf then you'd remember that i, in fact, pushed to take the page in just such a direction. However, he -- and his cadre of supporters -- made it quite clear at that time that anything they considered to be offensive would not be allowed, regardless of its relevance to the discussion we had agreed upon.
Thus, this page has gotten saddled with the brutish, boring task of simply enumerating those historical facts about international terrorism disseminated by the U.S. Fortunately, however, a page that deals exclusively with the doctrine of State Terrorism has already been created. Insofar as your material deals with general concepts, it is more suitably placed there. For the other stuff, read my criticisms above. Stone put to sky 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's on-topic, no problem. If it's off-topic, though, it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime I've begun the cleanup effort by removing links in the lead to vanity presses, non-notable web magazines (those without a Wikipedia article), non-notable organizations (those without a Wikipedia article), and articles which do not specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorism. That leaves Chomsky as the only ICJ accuser, and Chomsky and Cohn as the only overall accusers. Please defend the removed sources individually on talk before re-adding, arguing why they meet WP:RS and where they specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorist organizations. - Merzbow 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Gladly. I expect quick and detailed explanations why each of these satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.
“ | Richard Heinberg is one of the world's foremost Peak Oil [educators]...is the author of eight books...a Core Faculty member of New College of California...and a Research Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute.... His monthly MuseLetter has been included in Utne Magazine’s annual list of Best Alternative Newsletters. Since 2002, he has given over three hundred lectures on oil depletion...to a wide variety of audiences—from insurance executives to peace activists, from local and national elected officials to Jesuit volunteers.... | ” |
I took it from his website; material from published professionals in the field of study is clearly allowed per wikipolicy. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, the referenced page is a sourced work published widely across the internet and in media publications.
You both need to do better than that. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Author is published in Counterpunch and Globalresearch; a search on his name in Google turns up at least 200 separate articles published by various websites. He is a political commentator who reports primarily on conflicts in third-world nations and military campaigns by the United States. Clearly, a professional writing in the subject of his specialty, and in addition the source is up there for no reason other than to prove that "numerous people" actually are talking about this subject. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Another one:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/ - Some page maintained by an activist who holds no academic post, he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article. - Merzbow 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No academic post? You've got to be kidding. From Rojas' website:
“ | Teaching in Britain 1985-2002:
(Open University, University of East London, and other universities in the UK) (undergraduate level) Teaching in Britain 2001- : ( University College London (Development Planning Unit), and other universities in the UK ) (postgraduate level) Education: BSc, MPhil, PhD University teaching experience: Chile, People's Republic of China, and Britain Publications: Books published in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, Spain and the United States by major publishing houses ( i.e. Harper and Row in the US). Scores of articles and papers in major magazines and newspapers in Latin America, Spain, Germany and the United States). Main subjects: China, and Latin America as outlined in the sections on research. Visiting Examinations: 1992-1997 External Examiner at Birbeck College,University of London, for Development Economics. 2001-2003 Visiting Examiner at DPU, University College London, University of London, to the Board of Examiners in MSc Development and Planning. Consultancy: 1986-1999 BBC World Service ( China, South East Asia and Latin America) 1989-1999 Centre for Chinese Studies, SBU 2003-2006 Globalization and Europeanisation Network in Education website. ( http://www.genie-tn.net) |
” |
Finally, his entire website is set up as a research tool for people interested in "Political Economy":
“ | RRojas Databank introduce students and researchers to the political economy of the global system of nations and social clases, as a discipline dealing with relations of dependency, interdependency and domination between nations and social groups within and between nations. | ” |
The website is a repository of data from the World Bank, IMF, WTO, Columbia University, Rojas' own publications, and has had over 4,000,000 hits from 160 different countries.
Looks like a relevant authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Even more:
From his Wikipedia page, E. San Juan, Jr.:
“ | San Juan has lectured abroad as Fulbright professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, lecturer at the Hogeschool in Antwerp, Belgium; visiting professor of literature at National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan; and resident fellow at the Rockefeller Foundation Center in Bellagio, Italy. He has won numerous awards, among them the MELUS Best Essay Award, Gustavus Myers Center Award, and Centennial Award for Literature, Cultural Center of the Philippines.
His works span a broad spectrum of fields and disciplines, from cultural studies, comparative literary scholarship, ethnic and racial studies, postcolonial theory, semiotics to philosophical inquiries in historical materialism.
|
” |
Looks like an authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Look again; first, this is a collation of various news sources; second, the article referenced was originally authored by The Reality of Aid, whose list of members ( http://www.realityofaid.org/about.php?id=6) certainly qualifies it as a notable organization. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is silly. Counterpunch has a wikipedia page, and therein is noted:
“ | Notable contributors to CounterPunch have included Robert Fisk, the late Edward Said, Tim Wise, Ralph Nader, M. Shahid Alam, Ward Churchill, Lila Rajiva, the late Tanya Reinhart, Frank "Chuck" Spinney and Alexander Cockburn's two brothers, Andrew and Patrick, both of whom write on the Middle East, Iraq in particular.
Some paleoconservative writers like Paul Craig Roberts and William Lind can also be found in CounterPunch. The site regularly publishes veteran radicals, such as Lenni Brenner, Fidel Castro, and the late Stew Albert, as well as younger authors such as Diane Christian, Joshua Frank, Norman Finkelstein, Ron Jacobs, Gary Leupp, Cynthia McKinney[1] and David Price. |
” |
The writer is James Petras,
“ | a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York,...an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and...co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed) and Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina | ” |
An article written by an academic who has authored at least one book (maybe two) published on the topic in question, and published in a widely read periodical that deals in political commentary. Clearly a valid source. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't get much more neutral than a priest -- and can't get much more authoritative than this one. From his webpage (found here: http://www.preda.org/frcullen.htm):
“ | In 1974, he established the Preda Foundation The People¹s Recovery Empowerment Development Assistance Foundation Inc. (PREDA) with Alex and Merly Ramirez Hermoso to help deal with the many problems and victims of abuse especially the victims of torture and military oppression by the Marcos martial law regime and its political supporters.
The Preda center on a hill overlooking Subic Bay became a sanctuary for those threatened with summary execution by the military. During the 1980¹s He campaigned successfully for the removal of the US Military bases and the establishment of economic zones to replace them. Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He has a weekly Sunday column in the Manila Times (Sunday Times), The Universe (UK) and the Sunday Examiner (HK). He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001 and 2003 Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001. He has testified before numerous Senate committees and the US congress in 2005. Numerous newspaper articles and television documentaries have reported the success of his work protecting children and campaigning for human rights. ITN/CNN broadcast a report that highlighted his work in releasing and caring for children and youth in subhuman conditions in Philippine prisons. Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001. Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001. |
” |
'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | Roland G. Simbulan, Convenor/Coordinator, Manila Studies Program
Vice Chancellor for Planning and Development and Professor in Development Studies and Public Management University of the Philippines Published Papers: Roland G. Simbulan, Effective Advocacy: Lessons from the People’s Anti- Bases Struggle, Quezon City: Ibon Foundation, 1992. 2. Roland G. Simbulan, “The Betrayal of the Poor”, Today national newspaper, November 6, 2000. 3. Roland G. Simbulan, “How the Battle for the Bases was Won”, www.boondocksnet.com, February, 1992. |
” |
'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop throwing up whatever randomly drifts to the top of a Google search, because that's what going on here. - Merzbow 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the issue here seems more to be one of you not reading the sources and simply challenging them off the top of your head. Add to that a healthy dose of what appears to be casual bigotry towards any source that doesn't originate in the United States and i think we've pretty much summed up the whole problem. Stone put to sky 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow and Ultramarine clearly have no idea about what research means. Suggesting that a source should not be used because it doesn't have a Wikipedia page is absurd. Redress is highly respected UK based NGO that specialises in torture, they have consultive status with the UN. Zed books is a highly respected specialised publisher, many Oxford University Professors publish with them. It seems that you only want to use mainstream American sources which completely goes against the very idea of Wikipedia, which should be global and should include all views. Pexise 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to have them handy. Not sure if they are in use already:
What relevance do those have other than to push a pov? One is a prominent leftist, another an openly anti-American leader, and the last a leader of a country were anti-American sentiment runs extremely strong. At best this is extremely unbalanced and pushes a clear viewpoint. -- MichaelLinnear 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; these are quotes regarding State Terrorism by the United States and meet all standards hitherto agreed upon for the page. You are not allowed to delete material simply because you don't like it, or don't agree with those responsible for creating it. Whether or not you consider these people "good americans" or "sympathetic to America" or "neutral regarding America" is irrelevant; the fact is that these statements have been made, they meet our agreed upon standards, and so they belong on the page.
If y'all would like to include some sort of commentary explaining that this is an encyclopedic treatment of the subject -- and not a direct indictment of the United States -- then feel free. I'd suggest you explain how this is merely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject that introduces the concepts, arguments, and evidence used by people to justify the phrase "State Terrorism by the United States". That is how this page is intended (and always has been), and if you wish to add that material the other editors here will be happy to aid you in any way we can.
We will not, however, allow you to delete this material. Stone put to sky 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. I will happily include counter-criticisms if they are relevant to this article.
Counter-criticisms of the concept of "State Terrorism" do not belong here; we have a separate wikipedia article (called, suitably enough, State terrorism) for that.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it i who suggested we include a section here that would allow a back-and forth over such ideas? But then, it got deleted per the insistence of several other editors here, of which -- hey? Weren't you the loudest one? Ah, well -- feeling the strain, now, are we?
Likewise, digressions into what "defenders of the SOA" think are equally irrelevant, because this simply isn't an article about the SOA. This is an article about State Terrorism by the United States, so a back-and-forth about the SOA is inappropriate (unless, that is, you care to create a separate section where we can include such criticisms?).
These quotes, however, have been up for nearly two years, maybe longer. Nobody has tried to delete them, and in that time you have been one of the most vocal critics and constraining forces on this page.
Now, just above clearly state that you will "start to delete" things unless you can post material that you think should be here even though it is clearly off-topic. What i find very interesting is that yes, indeed, you are beginning to do just that! In this case, demanding that material which for over two years you have never objected to nor ever suggested should be removed now be deleted. Stone put to sky 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a news and commentary site that collates work from professional writers, scholars, and activists. It is published in two languages, and has regular readership in Africa, Western Europe, and North America. It publishes independent news reports for which it has won recognition from several notable awards and standards organizations. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with material from this website. Stone put to sky 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"US Government funding and training of of Guatemalan 'Death Squads'" [12] [13]
Source number one is to unspecific. Which of these 32 documents support the allegation? Many speak of the opposite. The second source speaks only of a single person. Ultramarine 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Source one is by no means unspecific. Both of those links either directly link to summaries or themselves contain summaries of the content of the documents. The summaries are written by professional historians tasked with maintaining, collating, cataloging and cross-referencing the archives. The statements which these sources footnote are clearly supported by both these summaries and the content itself.
If the editors here are going to quibble over simple statements like "U.S. funding and training of Guatemalan Death Squads", then you should expect such voluminous sources in response. Virtually all of those 32 documents contains a direct reference to funding and/or training. Stone put to sky 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The second source outlines the career development of a man convicted of repeated acts of state terrorism and shows how, over a span of nearly four decades, the U.S. government aided and intervened on his behalf in an effort to advance his career and further empower him despite knowing of his long and horrendous list of crimes. It is a single, in-depth case.
The first source excerpts documents from a thirty five year period showing that the U.S. continued to fund, train, and politically support Guatemalan military leaders despite full knowledge of the extent of the Guatemalan state's atrocities. Yes, there are dissenting opinions; however, a dissenting opinion doesn't count unless it changes policy. The documents from the first source clearly show that despite repeated warnings and condemnations of the Guatemalan state apparatus and its primary, Washington-backed, -funded, and -trained leadership, the United States Government even yet maintained support and funding for the criminals. Stone put to sky 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Having already answered this specific question twice, i will not waste my time on it again. Please remember, however, that any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why the long graphic rape description? That one of the persons involved spoke American English is not evidence for anything. Ultramarine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are already provided, and clearly support the statements and testimony. Regardless of how you might wish to remove it, the testimony occurred in a court-case that convicted the U.S. funded, Harvard-attending, SOA-commencement-giving, U.S. trained Gramajo-Morales of crimes that clearly qualify as terrorism. The testimony provides insight into what sort of torture these death-squads routinely engaged in, how they were managed, and the participation of at least one man "who spoke broken Spanish with a heavy North American accent" and who (unquoted, but in the testimony) was to deliver Sister Ortiz to the U.S. Embassy.
Call me silly if you want, but i doubt that the North American was from Canada.
Stone put to sky
09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Material does follow policy. Moreover, it has gained a long consensus. There are clearly stated reasons for including it. You have yet to make a case that it should be deleted.
The material was included precisely as a result of your insistence that all claism be backed up.
You made the bed. Stone put to sky 11:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The material clearly follows policy; many reasons have already been given for why it should remain; and you are trying to buck an already established consensus.
You set the standards for inclusion in this article; it was because of your own insistence that every statement in the article be sourced that we have found it necessary to include this testimony. Clearly, the portion of the article in question is dealing with the case of Sister Ortiz, who was awarded several millions in U.S. dollars (which were never received) because she suffered torture, rape and other abuse at the hands of a squad of Guatemalan military people.
The testimony was given in the U.S. courts and accepted as evidence therein. It demonstrates that what is asserted about Sister Ortiz' case has been accepted as truth; it demonstrates the severity of the abuse and torture Guatemalan victims generally suffered; and it demonstrates that the abuse was clearly suffered while she was under the nominal "care" of the state. All of these things contribute to the various points that are required for an act to qualify as "terrorist" in nature, according to the FBI, CIA, and other definitions of terrorism.
Because the testimony is able to bear witness to all these various facets of the issue at hand, it is extremely powerful. Because it is so succinct, it is very valuable. Thus, because it is succinct and powerful, it is included here.
The material will remain, and please be advised that if you attempt to delete it your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you people have time to get any work done?
The article could use a few graphic descriptions of violence like the rape scene. It is important to convey that this is not just some abstract issue about whether the acts of an abstract entity like a nation-state called the U.S. may be described under the rubric of "terrorism" but it is a very real issue with very real victims and consequences. It should never be just a dry recitation of places, dates and numbers of victims.-- NYCJosh 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The passages about Guatemala are necessary to provide a personal account of the methods used by the US-supported death-squads to terrorize the population. The mass killings (bodies in pits), the lack of proper burial (the rats), the torture/rape tactics all served to terrorize the population in a very effective way. It is not endless--only several sentences, and is not "torture porn"--the reader is not led to identify with the torturers and is not particularly graphic in describing in anatomical details.
I would call for additional such human narration for countries other than Guatemala to provide the perspective of the victims, bring the discussion down from the abstract level to the human level, and to provide some specifics on the METHODS of terror. As a former graduate student of history, I know that the emphasis on individual human descriptions of important historical pheonmena (to the extent that they are in some sense typical or that they shed light on the larger abstract historical reality under discussion) has been an important trend. It's bottom up history not top-down history. -- NYCJosh 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in an enclyclopedia bottom-up history should dominate in terms of prominence over succint dry accounts (if you look at my additions to this article, you'll note that they're just about all in the latter category). But there is an important place for the former for the reasons given. -- NYCJosh 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Your objections are irrelevant, Merzbow; the content is in no way "soap-box" ranting and your attempt to portray it as such is laughable. There is consensus for the content, there is good reason for the content (see above), and it conforms both to Wikipedia policy as well as the contrived standards of content you and Ultramarine have devised for this page.
Please understand that if you try to delete the material your actions will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s." The OR implication is that the US is responsible for all of these deaths when the in fact the US had cut of military aid during much of this period. Ultramarine 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That is pure claptrap; the statement implies only that the U.S. was a responsible party, and in no way suggests full and sole culpability.
As for the funding, the U.S. legislature cut off aid during that period; clearly, you are forgetting the secret CIA aid (quoted -- and sourced -- elsewhere in this article) that continued to be sent. Stone put to sky 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I only use indentation when it seems appropriate; typically, it's when i'm commenting on a block of text or engaging in a digression from the main point of a conversation. When in a dialogue on the talk page, however, i do not consider it appropriate.
Nor do i consider your request to be all that civil; i don't spend my time correcting your english or formatting options and i think it's a small thing to ask you to exercise restraint and show similar respect.
Finally: no, it is not necessary for us to introduce any such extraneous commentary. The text already makes quite clear that primary responsibility for these atrocities lay with the Guatemalan military, and that the U.S. is culpable only for the training, funding, political support and political leadership of the primary actors. Stone put to sky 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the text most certainly does state that, and the sources i have provided -- which are summaries of declassified CIA documents -- clearly show that funding, training, political support and political leadership were all provided to the Guatemalan leadership of that era.
You can't argue with declassified documentation, Ultramarine. It's all clearly there, and in no way controversial. Unless you can come up with a better argument, then the text will remain as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are not reading the sources:
"The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos. This funding was seen as necessary to make these services more capable partners with the station, particularly in pursuing anti-communist and counternarcotics objectives. The CIA, with the knowledge of ambassadors and other State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as the Congress, continued this aid after the termination of overt military assistance in l990.
There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cutoff of military aid in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995."
It clearly says the CIA continued to fund them. I understand you want to post counter arguments, but you are not looking well when you do not read the sources. -- 74.73.16.230 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) More from this source:
Relations between the US and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The human rights situation deteriorated further in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as the Guatemalan army--in which the intelligence and security services played a central role--waged a ruthless scorched-earth campaign against the communist guerrillas as well as noncombatants. In the course of this campaign in a country with a population that has never been more than approximately 10 million, more than 100,000 Guatemalans died. Through the 1980's and into the 1990's, the human rights situation gradually improved as the insurgency waned, but successive Department of State human rights reports continued to document egregious violations, including murders of political opponents. Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid.
The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other US agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala.
The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.
So the US cannot be blamed for all of the deaths in the civil war. Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again: there is nothing in the text that "blames" the U.S. for "all" the deaths in these incidents of state terrorism. The article clearly connects the U.S. to support -- through funding, training, and political protection -- of the Guatemalan military as it perpetrated many instances of torture, genocide, and terrorism. That's all the article says, and it says it just fine the way things are worded. Stone put to sky 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevant portions of the "above material" have already been included. If you peruse the article, mention is made of the vicissitudes in U.S. public policy, with attribution. The fluff, however, has been properly trimmed.
Once again: while it is perfectly appropriate to include material that shows the U.S. government did worry some over this policy, what is relevant to the article -- and the only thing relevant to the article, at this point -- is that the policy of support -- through funding and training -- did not change.
That is what is relevant to an entry titled "State terrorism by the United States". Again -- these are standards which you yourself engineered and insisted upon, with great prejudice and vehemence. Unless you are willing to change your own policy standards, then there is simply no way we can allow extraneous counter-arguments into the article. Stone put to sky 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to look harder. Some of the statements are from that report and some from related documents. It doesn't specifically mention Ward but he was the station Chief so was held responsible and fired. I also used a summary from George Washington university.
I'm interested in how you can have an opposing view when the U.S. government actually admits guilt. Are we talking about the "end justifies the means" defense?
Wayne
16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Wayne, for that comment. I think you have pretty much demolished Ultramarine's line of argument, and i much appreciate the rest. ;-) Stone put to sky 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Why is this graphic description of this particular human rights violation included. The ICJ stated that the US did not have sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for their human rights violations. Ultramarine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
How strange.
First, the ICJ never said any such thing. They clearly laid responsibility for the overall human rights violations upon the United States; that's why the U.S. was found guilty of an "illegal use of violence", or whatever the statement was.
What the ICJ refused to consider, however, was that every act by the Contras would fall to the responsibility of the United States.
Now, this has all been explained quite clearly above. Apparently you didn't understand it, then. I suggest you go back and review, because you are badly misinterpreting the ICJ ruling.
Next, i would like to ask if we are to presume from the above questions that you think:
A) Because the ICJ stated the U.S. was not responsible for all of the Contras' human rights violations, that
B) we should question the inclusion of the passage you cite above?
Because to me that seems like a very strange leap in logic. Stone put to sky 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; you are selectively quoting from the ICJ. This has already been explained to you above. I am not going to go back into it. Either you are able to understand, or you're not. Regardless, your attempt to force this artificial and inaccurate interpretation is easily refuted.
The material remains, unaltered. Any attempt to delete it will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Imputable: To ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible. The court ruling is stating that The US broke the law by funding and providing materials including that document, however Bob killing Jane was in the end Bobs fault. I posted the definition since it seems to be ignored. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Laying of mines, yes; odd how you fail to mention training of the Contras, teaching them torture techniques, funding the Contras, setting tactical and strategic goals along the lines of "low intensity warfare" (which means "kill and torture unarmed peasants but try to avoid the military"), and political protection in the UN and other international bodies.
The ICJ decision said considerably more than you are alleging here, and included the U.S. as the primary font of a long list of crimes. Stone put to sky 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it did. You are simply wrong -- yet again, as you often seem to be, lately -- and please be advised that if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.
Let me also remind you that you are performing WP:OR. There are plenty of sources which reference the ICJ ruling and unambiguously support the wording provided on the page. There will be no more discussion of this until you can come up with an authoritative legal or interpretive source that supports your perspective. And please be advised: if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again: Ultramarine, you are performing original research. Unless you can find a source which supports your interpretation of the ICJ ruling, the material will be re-worked and the quotation deleted.
If you try to delete other material in retaliation, your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.
If you try to force inclusion of this selective and clearly misleading quotation while excluding material that is more accurate, your actions will be considered vandalism.
There is no middle ground here: either find a source that supports your interpretation of that particular passage of the ICJ, re-work the material so that it provides an accurate sense of the ICJ ruling, or delete it.
And please remember that if you don't, i will - per the consensus of virtually every legal authority on the planet. Stone put to sky 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We should add regarding the "Torture manuals" that the CIA claims that they were intended to "moderate" activities already being done. Ultramarine 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Unless we have concrete evidence of what was actually being done at the time then there is no possible way for us to back up that statement.
Of course, if there were evidence that the U.S. and CIA knew what was being done at the time, that would of course implicate them as at least vicarious participants.
So feel free to do the research. i look forward to reading over your discoveries. Stone put to sky 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Claims" by the CIA are not allowed unless they are backed up with evidence. We have no evidence that the former methods of torture were in fact "worse" than the later ones the CIA tried to teach. Unless you can come up with a source that shows what methods of torture were used previously, then we must conclude that these claims by the CIA are questionable.
Otherwise you are guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Stone put to sky 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think the CIA side should be presented in whole. I will restate this, but I think the opposing side should be presented in each section by adding a criticism subsection. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Opposing claims may only be included so long as they are backed up by properly sourced evidence and relevant to the text. Your sources do not deny that the U.S. participated in these acts; rather, they only explain the U.S. government's justification for why they felt their support for these methods of torture, genocide, rape and mass murder were justified. Stone put to sky 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed we may; but only insofar as they are relevant to the article.
If you wish to include sources here disputing the events in question, then they must address the specific issue of State Terrorism, the specific incidents of state support, or the specific instances of terrorism mentioned. This is the standard to which you have held the other editors on this page, and this is the standard to which you will be now held. Stone put to sky 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no violation of NPOV here; i know that because you -- one of the most vehement deletionists on this page -- are responsible for laying down the rules to which all material on this page must conform.
It was you who insisted that all initial statements must include reference to "State Terrorism" and attribute it to the United States; it was you who insisted that any discussion or attempts to elaborate upon definitions of "State Terrorism" and their relevance to actions by the U.S. would not be allowed; it was you who insisted that no material could be included unless it directly referenced the claims of state terrorism; and it was you who insisted that each and every fact on this page be sourced and referenced, no matter how trivial.
Obviously, with such standards we could not possibly be in violation of NPOV; similarly, since you clearly felt these standards were fair to impose on us, the other editors, you could not possibly feel that they are now restrictive and unfair.
Unless your material conforms to these three rigid guidelines, the material cannot be included. Stone put to sky 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"According to an article in the Asia Times, "Sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of US regional policy over the past quarter-century." This is from an unsourced commentary and seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted. Ultramarine 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. That's easily enough done by looking up the articles by Seymour Hersh, which is who the Asia Times are quoting. Why don't you do that, Ultramarine? It'd be a good-faith gesture, and improve the article.
Of course, if you refuse to do so and instead simply attempt to delete the passage, we will interpret that as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; i am sure you haven't tried very hard, because i clearly remember the article by Sy Hersh that made these claims. I believe they were in the New Yorker.
Again: either put up, or the material remains. Stone put to sky 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The author of the article (M K Bhadrakumar) is the one stating the passage above. I am not sure what the drama is about? Its clear as day in the article that is used as a source. The author is a writer for the Asia Times, which is a WP:RS source ... I am not seeing the argument here. Please either of you fill me in. Thank you. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. Those are all much appreciated. Stone put to sky 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"Operation Ajax, which involved organised riots and the training of right-wing terrorist groups" None of the given sources mention "terrorist" groups. Ultramarine 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Ultramarine; the citation will stand until either you go find the book and give us a clear citation showing that it does not, in fact, state what is asserted, or somebody else does.
If you cannot be bothered to go check on a source, then you will at least remain patient while others do. Stone put to sky 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"an attempted coup in France (1961)" Seems to refer to some very obscure conpiracy theory. The given source is " Pierre Abramovici and Gabriel Périès, La Grande Manipulation, éd. Hachette, 2006" What is this? A book? Then page numbers would be required. Regardless, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article. Ultramarine 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; in France, it's a widely accepted account of the post-war situation. A few folks here can read french, and believe it or not just because something isn't written in english doesn't mean that it's an "extraordinary" claim.
This is a widely respected academic history of the post-war situation in France. If you want to argue against it, then please come up with some sourced material. Otherwise, the material stays.
And, as always: any attempt to remove it against the established consensus will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. It's not our responsibility to buy the book for you, prop open your eyelids, and give you shock therapy until you've completed it. Stone put to sky 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You all are acting like children. The source is verifiable, go search to see if the book exists. The source itself is then verifiable as existing. Your issue is then if the source is stating XYZ due to a lack of page numbers. While I agree page numbers would be more helpful, if there are no quotes being used, you cannot really reference a page to explain an overarching theme of a book. I would also be interested in reading the details of those arbitration cases. Please provide some links. Thank you. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro. [3] [4] [5]"
No involvement by the CANF and the US, so should be removed. Should if anything be cited as evidence againt state terrorism, since the it was the US who stopped the assassintion. Ultramarine 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is just so silly.
First, it has three different sources, one of which is from the UN. Second, it clearly documents the relationship between Mel Martinez and a famed anti-castro terrorist organization.
This is yet again another instance of supporting information that has been included to clarify statements that appear elsewhere in the article; in this particular instance, that "Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF."
You have complained that we have cuban sources in the article; but here we have one source from the Miami-Herald and another from UN testimony, and you are complaining about it being "irrelevant".
Sorry; it's relevance as primary source material in support of an originating thesis is indisputable.
Once again: any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Granma is a valid source. That's all there is to it.
We are sorry that you have a prejudicial attitude towards the content presented there, but that's beside the point. It is a valid source, and the material remains. Stone put to sky 07:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We are sorry that you are prejudiced against Granma as a source. Nevertheless, it remains valid and the material remains. Stone put to sky 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine, you are obviously prejudiced against Granma as a source. That doesn't concern us, though, because it remains a valid source and the material remains. Stone put to sky 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think that it's "more notable", Seabhcan; that's precisely the point. If we cannot count on Granma to communicate the Cuban Government's legal position and official findings, then who can we count on?
The CIA?
(P.S. -- hey, Seabhcan -- how do you pronounce that damn jumble you call a name, anyway?) Stone put to sky 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Granma, there is not evidence to give. The source meets all qualifications of WP:RS WP:V. There is nothing in either of those that says Cuban publications are not valid, or that views of the Cuban government are not WP:RS, if that is the argument. This is absurd the bickering over Cuba as a source in any form, and unless someone posts something other then, they do not have freedom of the press, which is not a valid argument, this seems to be closed. PS no I do no thave to prove the New York Times is valid, you have to prove it is not. Every source added does not come with a declaration from the author that they were not lying and fully backed by the president of the publishing company/network, then certified by the U.N. Stop asking people to prove nothing. You have an accusation, its that it does not meet criteria, then back it up and prove it. Stating a group says its really the government stating XYZ does not then make it invalid as the government would be a larger WP:RS source, and further a better source. --
SixOfDiamonds
20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that state-sponsored coups can necessarily be labeled terrorism - unless part of their aim can reasonably be considered to be inspiring terror. Perhaps these can be moved to their own article, and have a link to that article added in the See Also section?
While i admit that a coup in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as an act of state-sponsored terrorism (the coup against Idi Amin was a blessing, right?), coups that are sponsored by a foreign government against a democratically-elected or populist-government are clearly a) political violence, b) illegal, and c) intended to force a political accommodation against the agreed upon will of the people.
These are the essence of all definitions of "terrorism" so far posted, in each and every point. Moreover, in the case of Guatemala the relevance of the planning of the coup is substantiated by the assassination lists which were drawn up and perhaps acted upon as well as the emergence of "death squads" and other "political enforcers" in the aftermath. The realization of these atrocities was contingent upon the coup itself.
I find it hard to believe that you would seriously argue that a foreign-sponsored coup against a popular government -- which is the epitome of state-sponsored political violence against a people -- does not qualify as an act of state terrorism. Stone put to sky 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Since we have such a source there is no need for any further talk about it.
Thank you, Merzbow, for putting an end to the discussion. I look forward to further contributions by you in the future. Stone put to sky 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass blanking of properly sourced text without consensus. That would be great. Badagnani 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As some of you may have figured out, editors have divergent views about some of the material included in this article. Accordingly, deleting significant content without first raising the issue on this page is inappropriate and borders on underhanded sabotage. This may not be true for all articles but it is true here.
Also, deleting material in a sneaky way is pointless because people will notice, restore your deletions and you will look like you were trying to pull a fast one and not acting in good faith. If you have a deletion, post it here with your argument for why it does not belong. -- NYCJosh 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course we can then run into arguments about whether a particular bit of material conforms to policy. In cases like this it is best to discuss before removing. Unfortunately on a topic like this it becomes very difficult to evaluate whether some material does or doesn't conform, which to me underlines the importance of discussion. I agree with you on the futility of setting one policy against another in these discussions. -- John 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
New people here always try to use rational means to thread the needle. However, i would like to point out that Merzbow, Ultramarine, Harrison, Morton Devonshire and the present-not-in-name-only MONGO have all made it clear that their ultimate goal is the deletion of the entire page, all content, without discrimination, always.
For three years, now, it's been this way. They are not going to change. Whatever reasons they come up with now for deleting material, once having managed to get portions or whatever taken away they will begin to work on the next batch.
Chossudovsky is a respected Canadian political commentator, editor of a widely regarded newsletter, and a tenured professor of political science; his commentary on the 9/11 incidents may be controversial, but they are well within the realm of appropriate academic speculation. Isaac Newton was a fierce proponent of Alchemy; that doesn't change the fact that gravity is still a relevant theory. Giordano Bruno believed he could practice witches, demons, and sorcery, but doesn't change the fact that he was a significant proponent of the Copernican model. There is no good reason to delete Chossudovsky's material.
Similarly, there is no evidence of violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:RS, and the only portion of the article that needs to be cleaned up at the moment is the badly misleading, highly selective quote from the ICJ in the Nicaragua section.
Now, there are two ways to go about something like that: either include an entire section on the ICJ, or give a brief -- one- or two-sentence summary -- of its findings, or simply link to the existing Nicaragua vs. United States wiki page and allow that to do all the talking. The cadre of deletionists, however, will not allow this; they insist upon inclusion of their misleading, selective quotation; only their misleading, selective quotation; and nothing but their own distorted, misleading commentary.
Please notice, however, that in addition to such improprieties there are others far more serious: the above commentators insist (based upon principles listed below) that there must be evidence provided to support a general statement like "The United States has been accused by numerous legal scholars, governments, political figures and human rights groups of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism". Now, regardless of how patently and obviously true such a statement is, the editors here are enjoined to "show sources" that it is indeed the case.
When we do, the sources we provide are systematically attacked as "not authoritative enough" -- even though they are all from published, professional journalists, scholars, human rights groups, political figures, and legal scholars! This is the sort of thing we constantly go through on this page: a simple statement that says nothing more than that many people around the world are talking about these ideas is challenged as "not being sourced" or "not having proof", and then when proof is provided the complaint changes, and the sampling of a large spectrum of people is rejected as not being authoritative enough.
On this one sentence in particular, the deletionist editors here have work tirelessly to try and whittle down the sources and re-work the introduction to say "Noam Chomsky says that the United States has been accused of...."
That is not editing in good faith; what would be an easily accepted statement in other articles becomes a point of contention, here. What would be considered nitpicking and bad-faith editing in other articles is elevated here to policy.
I and most of the other contributing editors here have no problem with people wanting to make this page better; however, many here have made it clear they do not want to see this subject treated in any way other than flat denial. This group has further clarified themselves by holding 6 AfDs on this article, not including their posturing (as above), with the phantastical straw polls and mutual back-slapping and so on.
Currently, the other editors here are doing nothing more than holding them to their own standards; artificial and arbitrary standards have been imposed upon contributing editors by this handful of protesters. I personally can testify that, for over two years, every attempt to communicate, reason, or negotiate with them has been met with scorn and disdain. Their insistence has always been that:
A) All formal, predicating content must be related to and include a phrase approximating a claim of "State Terrorism by the United States"
B) All supporting material and any statements must be sourced in every detail, no matter how small or trivial
C) All material must be directly floating condemnations of State Terrorism, or directly referencing a specific set of supporting facts within such a statement.
Each of those rules in itself is already extreme and, by the standards of other Wikipedia pages, unreasonable. They are made many times more frustrating and aggravating when applied with the vigor that the deletionists here insist upon. Moreover, the result has been to steer this page into a list of atrocities with which the U.S. is directly linked. I ask: what else could it be, with rules like that?
My point, in case it's not clear, is this: it is not the contributing editors who have created the current form of this page. It is the deletionists, and their intransigent, obstinate insistence upon these artificial standards of quality.
Now, what has become a clear pattern over these last few AfDs is this: an AfD is called, and that gets the attention of the Wiki-ops. They send someone over -- in this case, i believe it's Sancho? -- who in all good faith jumps in and starts to try and make heads or tails of this morass. Suggestions are tabled, and attempts are made to try and massage the consensus here into something more cooperative.
Unfortunately, what the advisers and arbitrators rarely realize -- or at least, rarely realize until they've worked at it for a good while -- is that this page is really just bickering over a single issue: its right to exist.
There are several contributors here who will balk and resist at any and every attempt to expand, hone, or in any way improve the content of this page. Their only desire is to see all the content deleted -- and if you don't believe me, then go back and look at the six failed AfDs they've participated in. Or review the talk-page history. Or review the history of their edits.
This group rarely introduces content; when they do, the portions posted are poorly enough edited and suffer from such terrible grammar and syntax that they almost qualify as vandalism. Any attempt to change or clean up said passages is met with obstinate resistance, even when the material is clearly irrelevant.
Finally, the material they present rarely -- if ever -- adheres to their own, pre-established standards, and when requests are made that it be tightened up they are vehemently rejected; those requests must then become demands, and those are usually rejected; finally, those demands must simply become deletes, and when that happens we are offered a quid pro quo: either allow the material to remain, or a new round of deletions will begin again on the main page.
This happened most recently with Ultramarine, and if everyone will look just above they will see the offer clearly made: either we allow Ultramarine's content to remain, or he will begin to delete material. The implication is clearly that he won't delete the material if his material is allowed to stay, and i ask: is there any more clear violation of Wikipedia standards? His offer is unambiguous, and goes something like this: "If you allow my content to stay and do not challenge its validity, relevance, or authenticity, then i will not delete material that consensus has already established as valid, relevant, and authentic. But if you do not adhere to my demands, then i will begin to delete this material, regardless of how the community might protest."
In other words: you allow my poor content to remain, and i won't vandalize the page.
And indeed, what do we see, now, these last three or four days?
Continual attempts by Ultramarine to delete large portions of the article, against the established consensus and in contravention to virtually every wiki-policy yet authored. We had to freeze the page to stop him.
Sincerely -- Stone put to sky 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No, dear fellows, i must inform you that you are wrong.
First, the citations are nothing more than sources demonstrating that the statement "numerous [commentators, authoritative and professional alike,] have accused the U.S. of state terrorism". The point of contention in this statement has always been the plural "commentators" and the adjective "numerous", which you and several others here have consistently tried to re-write as "Noam Chomsky". Your objections were that the statement was not sourced.
For the purposes of our current requirements, then, these sources are more than adequate: they demonstrate that there are official political, legal and bureaucratic organizations that have officially taken this stance; they demonstrate that professional commentators around the world have taken this stance; they demonstrate that legal scholars and human rights groups have taken this stance; and finally they demonstrate that academics within this area of expertise have taken this stance. Now, since it was y'all who demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like trivial facts require extraordinary documentation.
Secondly, i really don't care what you think or don't think about CETIM. It's currently on permanent advisory to the UN (as noted above); it's a formal research institute publicly funded; and it has a special research section devoted to International Law. It will most certainly stay. Finally: since y'all demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to rewrite your own rules and pretend like trivial facts require authoritative documentation.
Thirdly, the Zoltan Grossman site is widely cited as source material; it is published research by an academic well within his area of expertise; it provides clearly cited sources; and finally, it was published by a widely read publication. Say what you like, but that clearly qualifies as valid source material for wikipedia. In addition, if you can't wrap your brain around the idea of a professional "Native American Studies'" researcher as having relevance to this topic, then you are really out of touch with what is being built here. And lastly, i'd like to remind you that it was you and your comrades who contended this trivial statement; you all wanted documentation and we have given it. Now that it's there you're not allowed to change the rules and pretend like your whim is the rule for this page. The source stays.
Fourth, the "non-notable" political blog is the personal website of a published journalist writing in a formal and official manner about his area of expertise. Moreover, it is offered up only as evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators who are or have accused the U.S. of state terrorism. That's all we need to qualify that particular statement. Since y'all demanded documentation, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like you didn't ask for it.
Finally, there is no reason to delete material simply because it comes from Chossudovsky; you will need to do better than that. Chossudovsky is a widely published political analyst who is editor and founder of a news and commentary site published in two different languages, with regular readership on three continents, and whose authors include a long list of high-profile academics, journalists, authors and ex-bureaucrats. He is a tenured professor and head of two different grass-roots political groups, both of which deal (if i'm not mistaken) with issues of international law and human rights. He is a far, far cry from a mere "conspiracy theorist". Whatever is said about him on other webpages is -- as in the words of our beloved Ultramarine -- utterly irrelevant to this page. Here we do things according to our own consensus, and -- as Ultramarine is so fond of saying -- if other pages want to make that mistake then fine. They may. For our page, however, you will need to do better than ad hominem attacks against Chossudovsky to justify deletion.
Moreover, since it was you, Morty -- along with your cadre of fellow deletionists -- who demanded that the most trivial and uncontestable statement on the page be backed up by sources, you now have no leg to stand on by decrying that a trivial statement is backed up by unremarkable sources. The content of the statement is clear: there are numerous people and groups around the world who have condemned actions by the United States as instances of State Terrorism. Regardless of how deeply you might object to that statement -- and it is clear from the repeated attempts you have made to delete this page that they are deep and fierce -- nevertheless, the statement clearly is substantiated by factual, incontrovertible sources which -- in every way! -- satisfy wikipedia's guidelines for valid references.
Unless you can come up with better reasons than these, the references stay. Stone put to sky 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV, the article must also include opposing views. Some proposals can be found here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Suggestions and discussion would be welcome, here or on the talk page of that user page. Ultramarine 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All of the sources in this article either contain a statement that clearly uses the words "state terrorism" or directly reference such an article. Insofar as you wish to include any content, you may either use existing sources which mention "state terrorism" or you may supply your own. If, however, you are unable to manage either of these then the content is clearly inadmissible.
“ | The judgment in Nicaragua vs. United States never find the United States guilty of terrorism or state terrorism. That is Chomsky's personal interpretation. | ” |
The first and second paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. It simply is a justification of US support for dictatorships, and explanation of why democracy is better. In regards to the democracy section, I support these staments, but it is better to be in another article.
The third paragraph says: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation." It then states: "However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships." This is true, but this does not mean that the US has or has not committed terrorism. Terrorism is not the same as the number of civilians killed.
Third paragraph: "Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct." POV. The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism either, just more justification of US foreign policy.
The fourth paragraph has little to do with terrorism also. It is also factually incorrect. Many of the actions of the CIA at the Nicaragua v US case were state supported and sanctioned terrorism.
The fifth paragraph is a broad statment "The US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations" not, to my knowledge, supported by the reference. This is not an article about the positive aspects of the US governmment, there are several articles like this, which I am sure you have built. Instead it focuses on the terrorism conducted by the US.
The Cuba section disregards the non-Cuba sources. (See footnotes 36-68--32 footnotes for that section alone)
The Nicaragua section ignores that there were 16 finding of the court, and typcially, only focuses on one, the positive one. This one paragraph is not the complete finding of the court.
Further, which is ignored in this white wash article, the court found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" which is the very defintion of terrorism (look it up). Through out the judgement the judges mention terrorism, as do the witnesses.
The Guatemala section states: "The United States cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the long civil war." No one is.
The School of the Americas section ignores the long bloody history of school of America's graduates. If I recall, it also ignores how many of the students and facilty see the training as a joke. The Torture Manualss from the School of America are also ignored. Not surprising, because the source is the SOA itself.
My question is: How many deaths can the US be blamed for? In this fairytale view of history, it looks like the answer is "none".
I appreciate your efforts. Please avoid blanket statments and narrow your research to terrorism only, especially in the first paragraph. 69.152.139.102 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no double standard here, Ultramarine, except for the one you are trying to beg for yourself.
Once again, Ultramarine: all of the sources in the article have been provided to either back up statements that were made within an article that clearly references "state terrorism by the u.s.", or because they are articles which make a direct statement to that effect.
All sources provided by you must conform to these two stipulations to be admitted to the article. If they do not, then you may not post them to the article. Obviously, you must now simply do more work and more research to find some that conform to these stipulations -- which you have imposed upon the article -- because the content you are currently offering up here clearly does not meet those standards. Stone put to sky 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A move has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Now that the afd has closed with a recommendation to pursue other editorial venues, such a move back to the former consensus title can hopefully be discussed. The proposed title is a far better solution because it is not an point of view condemnation, would match the other title in the state terrorism series, Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, and would follow the NPOV titles for other contentious articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The United States has never been definitively condemned as having engaged in terrorist acts, and the least the article can do is have the title reflect that. -- MichaelLinnear 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the United States has been -- repeatedly -- and the sources are here on this page to prove it.
I'm sorry, but there is no consensus here -- and never has been -- for a change to the name "Allegations of State Terrorism...." That is weasel-language, and i am unconcerned if Jewish people in the United States are outraged by the fact that people want to point out Israeli Apartheid and protest it by defacing wikipedia content; the fact is that there are many, many people in the world who use that phrase -- as well as "State Terrorism" -- and it deserves mention.
The only reason this page is so long and detailed is because of the protesters here; for my part, i would have been happy with a three- or four-paragraph treatment of the subject, but because of the artificial and exaggerated content standards forced upon the editors of this page, it has grown into what it is now.
Open up an Encyclopedia Britannica and you will not find "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", "Allegations of Holocaust", "Allegations of Fascist Atrocities", "Allegations of Apartheid", or "Allegations of Torture at Guantanamo Bay"; in each case there are many people who challenge these ideas. In each case, however, the ideas themselves are listed under a simple declarative heading.
This article should -- and will, per Wikipedia policy -- follow the same pattern. Stone put to sky 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, i can only say i respectfully disagree. State terrorism is a concept that has been rather clearly defined and is seeing increasing use in the international diplomatic, intelligence and legal communities; it's controversy is largely restricted to print and broadcast media and military circles, but even in the latter there's a lot more agreement than is widely acknowledged.
I don't think the name of this article would be an issue at all except that the people who want to see it deleted have made it one. Picking our battles? Everything on this page is a battle, even trivial, patently obvious statements like the opening sentence.
I wholeheartedly believe that changing the title will achieve nothing of value and its effects will work only counter-productively -- and not just for this page, but for all of wikipedia. The changes would only serve the interests of those people who want to see the page deleted and noone else. Leaving it as it is, however, will send a message to all prospective page vandals out to push a point-of-view on wikipedia, while helping to establish clear wikipedia policy on the introduction of weasel-words.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless of the outcome, it's been a pleasure. Stone put to sky 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The same standards used in other article must be used here. Wikipedia is often over-cautious with the US, let's void double standards.-- BMF81 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine claims that he has improved the text, but so far as i can tell any changes are merely cosmetic and have done nothing to address the objections listed above. Stone put to sky 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not a double standard; this has already been explained to you repeatedly, but i will assume good faith and do so again:
The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.
Further, you are ignoring the many complaints that much of what you have posted on that page is Original Research, unsourced personal opinions, or plain violations of the neutral point of view that wikipedia demands.
Thus, the consensus here is that the sandbox material does not meet the standards that you yourself have set for this page, and unless you can correct these flaws it cannot be added. Stone put to sky 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again:
The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.
All of the material i just added does conform to this standard.
That's all there is to it. These are the standards that you yourself have laid down for the page. Please, do the honorable thing and adhere to your own standards. We will not allow you to create a double standard for this page.
I have deleted your "Opposing" section per the recommendations of the other contributing editors here. Please understand that any more mass deletions of material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I shall take your inactivity in that matter as evidence that i have done an excellent job, managing to satisfy both your own high content standards as well as managing to properly exposit the intended subject.
Now, regarding your claims about the content standards on this page: you are plainly wrong.
All of the sources used in the sub-sections dealing with evidence against and condemnations of the U.S. are each clearly built around documents which first predicate the crime of state terrorism by the united states, and then supplemented by sources which outline the events and crimes outlined in those fundamental documents.
Either your sources must directly address those fundamental documents or they must themselves use the phrase "State terrorism" predicated to the United States. If your material and sources do not meet either of these criteria then they cannot be included on the page.
In addition, all contrasting views must be presented under the proper sub-heading. There is no place here for an "Opposing Views" section, because we are describing real-world events, not theories.
I suggest that you try harder to conform to these standards, and am in fact a little shocked at your protests. These are standards of your own creation; for you to claim that they do not hold is, frankly, ridiculous. Your presence on this page for the last two years has guaranteed adherence to them.
These are the rules which you yourself have established.
You plainly have no right to try and change them now. Stone put to sky 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with MichaelLinnear and Morton devonshire that this is the most appropriate title for this article, especially since that is what the ICJ found the U.S. government to be guilty of in the case of Nicaragua vs United States. Even so, Nicaragua later dropped their suit and claim to reparations that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. was supposed to pay the government of Nicaragua.-- MONGO 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll get a poll started here:
The title "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" is too weak. Most countries of the world have violated international law in one way or another. So, it doesn't carry much information. In fact the word "allegation" in the title would actually suggest that the US actually performed better than most other countries when it comes to upholding international law. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This not an article about "breaches of international law by the united states". However, if you all think that such an article is useful then feel free to create it. This article is about state terrorism by the united states -- the concept, who makes these charges, and what evidence there might be to support such an idea.
Please stop trying to play these name-change games, fellows. There is no consensus for such a change, and there will not be one. You are all currently quite guilty of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Please understand that any attempt to change the title without first reaching a consensus will be considered page vandalism, and acted upon accordingly. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
When the article was first moved from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of..." there was clearly no established consensus, vocal opposition to it, and much protest at the time it happened. Moving it back, therefore, was merely a restoration of the title after vandals had moved it against the wishes of the community. Stone put to sky 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
poll?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Personally I will be less than impressed by a fairly high vote title for the move to "breaches of international law by the united states." This proposal has, of course, been listed at Morton's Illuminati Noticeboard and will therefore receive votes from all of the usual suspects (many have already weighed in) who usually vote identically on "conspiracy theory" matters (though how this article has anything to do with conspiracy theories eludes me). It's obviously fine for that crew to weigh in here, but I think we should think of this "poll" (I'd much prefer a discussion) as an attempt to reach some consensus on the title (which may be impossible) rather than a straight winner-take-all vote. The proposed move is extremely, extremely radical, and I feel there should be fairly broad agreement about it in order for it to happen, not one well organized group of like-minded editors voting in lock step and thus bringing about a page move (I'm just calling it like I see it).-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I really support this article, but I suggest the excellent written first section of Guatemala be moved to the 1950s overthrow article, since it has nothing to do with terrorism per se.
The Philippine section is also interesting, but it is so large, maybe it deserves a seperate new article. Military aid to the Philippines is not terrorism, unless it is used for terrorist purposes. 69.152.139.102 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with including any of this stuff in distinct articles. The page is getting huge. I have always said that i thought a better treatment for this page would be to avoid getting bogged down in the details of the evidence and instead discuss the foundation of the condemnations of U.S. policy and why people think that qualifies as terrorism. The deletionists here have always rejected that approach out of hand.
Now they've got the page they insisted upon, and they want to delete that, too. Anyone surprised?
The first part of the Guatemala section is, IMO, relevant; it establishes that from the very beginning of U.S. involvement in the coup, assassinations, violence, and illegal, subversive action were common tools. All of that has bearing on what followed over the course of the next forty years, has in its own right been called state-sponsored terrorism, and falls within the scope of the definitions laid out at the top of this page. Stone put to sky 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. also gives to the U.N. Should we explore the "terrorism" by troops under the U.N. banner? It seems to fit the criteria that is used to include these other sections. --
Tbeatty
07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I really can't see any consensus here for the move. This is an awful title. -- John 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved to "State-sponsored terrorism by the United States" until we can get this State terrorism.... bug worked out. Stone put to sky 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this even more POV move which is not supported by the evidence...unless of course by evidence we are using some really extreme opinions to justify this title. I hope you guys keep adding extremism to this article...it will make it easier to demostrate it for what it is...a soapbox. Have fun! Why not just retitle it to The U.S of A., the evil empire...seriously.-- MONGO 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The closing admin listed renaming to resolve the conflict. The majority of comments on the AfD were to move it. That is consensus. The only thing left was to determine the new name. Keeping the same name, however, is NOT consensus. -- Tbeatty 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The current title is absolutely unacceptable. It now says that the US is guilty of terrorism which is sponsored by another state. That can't be right. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to call attention to this bit of fluff that MONGO felt the urge to delete from the page, and ask if it is standard wikipedia policy to delete such things on behalf of the community or if MONGO was merely acting on some sort of personal decision. Beguiled recently posted:
“ | Would someone please tell stone put to stupid to say NO to drugs? I've been watching this fiasco unfold here over the past day and I have never seen a more ridiculously stupid pile of crap of an article. Next time your third world shithole of a country gets taken over by someone like Saddam or that nutjob running Iran, you know, the moron who says the Holocaust is a lie, and we'll just let you people rot. We never should have shoul;d have invaded Iraq because, well, why should we care if the Kurds are gassed and the guy breaks every single UN backed resolution that is passed on him. Liberals never what to go to war unless the tanks are coming down their own driveways.-- Beguiled 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | ” |
I am under no illusions that MONGO was acting on my behalf, and in any event the insults don't really bother me. I am curious, however, why he deleted them (as he did above, with Ultramarine's quid pro quo offer regarding the deletion of material); i would think that it would be better to allow them to stand.
Stone put to sky 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Offended? Of course i'm offended. But they don't bother me, because I have come to expect such things from some of the editors on this page.
I'm sure you know the sorts i'm talking aobut, MONGO. Stone put to sky 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy is No Personal Attacks and Beguiled has been warned for it. Even if you aren't bothered about it, to conform to policy it would be preferable to remove the quote above. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 11:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the point has been made; if EVERY editor here -- contributing and deletionist alike -- is willing to allow that first sentence to stand as-is, then i think we can reduce the number of sources on it to a more reasonable number.
I want to get that agreement in writing, on my talk page: a clear promise from Morton Devonshire, Tom Harrison, MONGO, Ultramarine, Merzbow, and TDC -- in particular, no compromises -- that they will not attempt to delete the sentence nor will they attempt to alter it in any way without first achieving full community consensus.
Similarly, i expect them to promise to revert attempts by anyone else to change it.
If they are willing to abide by such a small restriction and act in accordance with their promise, then i'm perfectly happy to reduce the number of sources on it. Otherwise, i think they should stay. Stone put to sky 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, AA. Obviously, that agreement won't be coming, so this method is clearly a better compromise.
RE: MONGO's comment on number of sources: This is a trivial declarative statement describing what a commonly known fact. It was not i who demanded sources on this, but rather other deletionists present on this page. All we have done is back up the statement with incontrovertible evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators, experts, and organizations who do predicate "state terrorism" to the United States; we found this necessary because some of the deletionists on this page -- and please correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you one of them? -- repeatedly tried to change that first statement to a very misleading "Noam Chomsky claims...." Stone put to sky 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of multiple citations for a single comment and have argued against them on other topics but in this case I have to support them as some editors who want to reduce their number are also ironically using the arguement that there are an insuffient number of citations when opposing the same edits and also in support of RfD's. Until the page is stable and not under threat of frivolous RfD requests they should, unfortunately, stay. Wayne 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As i've said before: the deletionists here have been adamant about rejecting any proposals that have not originated with them, first. What i find amazing, however, is that despite their vehement insistence upon doing things their way and only their way, to date they still are dissatisfied with the content on this page.
The simple and plain fact is that it is they who are most responsible for limiting and directing the development of content on this page. They simply cannot come to grips with the idea that, regardless of what they try, there will remain a page on Wikipedia that presents these facts under the rubrik of State Terrorism, and predicated to the United States.
I have always understood their objections, and contrary to how they would like to portray me have offered up several compromises over the years. All have been rejected out of hand, without discussion.
My suggestion now is a rather radical one; i support a name change, and i have come up with a suitably NPOV name change that should satisfy everyone here.
It will, however, take the page in a radical new direction, and will demand a lot of work on the part of all parties. The deletionists themselves will find, however, that should they accept my proposition they will have a free hand to introduce the sources (properly referenced and of course conforming to the standards they have laid down) and content (so long as it is relevant) they prefer.
My proposal is to change the name to State terrorism and the United States.
This page would then become a summary of other pages on wikipedia where more content could be found regarding the cases in question. We could move the Guatemala, Philippines, and Nicaragua sections to other pages and provide brief (2-5 sentence) summaries of the content there. Similarly, the deletionists would have a free hand to develop pages regarding the charges which the United States' levels against other nations.
In short, we could have the "State terrorism by Cuba", "State terrorism by Syria", "State terrorism by the United States" and all other such pages all clearly referenced and tied back to this single page, which (hopefully) would not become the monstrosity it currently is.
Of course, we would need an introductory section, as well as describing the definitions used by the United States; similarly, any charges or allegations made against the United States could be linked back here, but then that would be the same sort of arrangement as we would get by changing the name to "Allegations..." anyway.
I hope this idea interests some of you, and if it is provocative enough to spark a new direction for this impasse then i look forward to the discussion. Stone put to sky 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine that there aren't that many other countries who accuse Cuba of terrorism. I may be wrong, but my guess is that most such charges come from the United States.
Regardless, any such charges would hopefully be referenced on a "State Terrorism and Cuba" page, or something like it.
And of course, because this is a wiki we could work out the kinks as we go along. Stone put to sky 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's appropriate for this article. Also, I note that the references refer to cultural imperialism and not cultural terrorism. Cultural terrorism seems to be a completely invented term that waters down the meaning of the word terrorism. Benhocking 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
State terrorism is offered up in at least one of the articles, but only as a contrasting term to "cultural terrorism", which is clearly not subsumed under it.
I hope that Tom isn't making an issue of this; i had presumed that he was above such silliness. Stone put to sky 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No search phrase, Ben; Tom's mocking me, because i often told Ultramarine to go back up to the top of the page and look at the first three or four explanations he'd been given, rather than reminding him a fifth or sixth time.
Tom,though, hasn't given any explanation yet -- nothing coherent -- so it's just more big-top shuffle.
Agree completely, Six. Unfortunately, Tom here isn't serious. He's just showing off his impersonation skills.
So, Tom: we see you can write nonsense. You've already shown us that more than a few times, now.
Nobody here holds James Petras to be a great scholar; a trivial statement was asked to be backed up, and so a trivial source has been provided. If you don't like it, then it would probably be best to stop acting in a trivial way; i'd suggest first taking off the clown suit and moving away from the bear-in-a-tutu.
I suggest we just delete the content as off-topic and be done with it. If they want to start an edit war, then please ask Bigtimepeace up there to get his sys-op gun working and freeze the page. Stone put to sky 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So, Tom, you want to put that lower lip out a little farther and drop some tears for us, too? Ultramarine's been harping on this point forever, and i thought i'd already explained it about as clearly as one could. But then, my guess those'd be crocodile tears, wouldn't they?
Really, though -- i'm glad you've pulled off the clown suit and started talking like the rational, cool, relentless Tom Harrison we've all come to know and love. Now if we could just get you to turn out the dancing bear...if you're going to make it wear a tutu you could at least give it a wash every now and then.
There is no synthesis in the article. "The upshot" is this: all of the subheadings in the article are clearly cited directly to at least a single, authoritative source plainly condemning the events as "state terrorism" (sometimes several, as in the Philippines section) and any supporting evidence that is relevant to these statements is included to explain and support. Referred sources for evidence and claims are all highly reliable and easily qualified per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV -- mostly government, popular media, and social-science experts working in an acknowledged field of expertise -- so your mocking tone towards the article's content really has no justification (unless -- as seems the case -- you are really mocking the violence itself, which is just sad).
Benhocking, i think it's obvious the barbs were directed at me, but again i really don't care. If the best Tom Harrison can do is mimic other editors and parrot Ultramarine then i don't think any of the contributing editors here has much to worry about. Stone put to sky 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Under our policy on biographies of living people I have removed the material on Palparan, which was both wildly slanted and not consistent with the sources cited. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly caution people not to restore material removed under wp:blp. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What I have so far:
General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses. [6] [7] These allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This view has however been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [8] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired." [9]
The AHRC however is requesting a greater look into the rise of political killings, citing: "[w]hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan." [10] Palparan has been noted in his comments on the killings:
“ The killings are being attributed to me but I did not kill them. I just inspire the triggermen...Their disappearance is good for us but as to who abducted them, we don’t know....I encourage people victimized by communist rebels to get even. [11] ”
Looking for Arroyo support still. Found an article but forgot the link where she states in a speech he should not be held responsible for individual soldiers or something to that effect. Just to add while I am willing to work here to improve the NPOV. I will not be looking for consensus to restore what was removed without a consensus, especially since it seems the majority believe it was not a BLP violation in the first place. Consider this an olive branch of good faith. -- SixOfDiamonds 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses. [12] [13] However, these allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This refutation has itself been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [14] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired." [15]
[Say who] has accused General Jovito Palparan of human rights abuses.[cite1][cite2] Eligio Mallari of the Asian Human Rights Commission says this is not the case: "[there was] no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." Quintin Quito III and Dominador Calamba II say [quote them, or briefly summarize]. General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has said "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired."[cite3]
This "article" is a disgrace It is also symbolic of the massive failures of Wikipedia and why it can never be taken seriously as a source. The conceit of the article is that the "unlawful use of force", per the ICJ, constitutes terrorism. Essentially the article admits the entire project is the creative inspiration of Noam Chomsky and proceeds to original research observations based on that fact.
Here's the thing: Chomsky was lying (big surprise). The "unlawful use of force" is not code for anything and is quite straightforward as a legal conception and as a phrase; Chomsky, being a linguist, knows better, but also being a propagandist knows the importance of emotive words being turned on the accuser (the US being a prime diviner of what constitutes terrorism).
The vast majority of these "allegations" are made tenuously linked to the subject at best, consisting mostly of a litany of subjects for criticisms of US foreign policy throughout the Cold War. The coups in Iran and Guatemala have nothing to do with terrorism, and other sections hinge on specious claims by far left organizations like the Italian communists and a left-wing Filipino [show trial] to make claims about "terrorism". If you want a laundry list of links for every communist or far leftist that has "accused" or made "allegations" about "state terrorism" "by the United States", you can compile such a list. But it is not a subject remotely fit for an encyclopedia.
I might console myself in believing this is merely a joke, but if it were it is in quite poor taste. -- 72.84.56.55 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See User:Ultramarine/Sandbox for earlier proposals. Here are more. Please explain the deletions.
Critics respond that "outside the Chomsky cult, of course, unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the ICJ has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the US did not since the " Soviet Bloc police states" were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court. [16]
Keith Windschuttle notes that Chomsky has stated that "the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial" for war crimes. "Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented." [17]
Windschuttle also notes that Chomsky has revealed he is no pacifist.
I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.
Windschuttle writes that in 2001, the average GDP per head in the Philippines was $4000. At the same time, twenty-five years of revolution in Vietnam had produced a figure of only half as much, a mere $2100. [18]
In The End of Faith (p. 146), Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):
Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.
Ultramarine 11:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, apart from the word "cult," which does not sound NPOV to me the argument presented is flawed and therefore should not be included. It is irrelevant how many regimes are ignored. Example: I drive 3000 mph through the city. A police officer (Chomsky) stops me and says I am speeding. My response is that he ignores all those other people that violate the law. Of course he immediately sees his error and lets me go. The logical fallacy here is that even if I can produce a million people this officer has not stopped, it does not negate the fact that I was violating the speed limit. So, although Chomsky may have ignored other violators that simple fact does not negate the allegations he makes against the US. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This article prominently discusses Chomsky's claims regarding what state terrorism is. Criticisms of these claims should be included, as should the opposing views regarding the ICJ. Ultramarine 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(indent) This is going in circles and getting everyone nowhere. You believe it is proper to counter the POV of a definition with criticism of who said it. The other side, one that I am on, believes you counter perceived POV of the definition with criticism of the definition. It is basically "ad hominem" attack, critiquing Chomsky instead of his definition. -- SixOfDiamonds 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
To the warring parties, how about we cooperate in creating State terror series on Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other non controversial but writable articles (I am not being fictitious here) ? Taprobanus 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean something like this for an article called "State terrorism by Cuba"?
Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba's Law 93 against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban government had not undertaken any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora or taken action against any designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN, and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January.
The Cuban government continued to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. The United States periodically requested that the government return wanted fugitives1, and Cuba continued to be non-responsive. The Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The five were variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities, but the Cuban government continued to refer to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. One was accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force's shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated, however, that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.2
Although Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, the government demanded that the United States surrender Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accused of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remained in U.S. custody. Cuba also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases.
This edit summary lets Giovanni33 portray himself in a favorable light, but it is inaccurate: "rv to last by Tom Harrision?" That is an impressive level of indentation above though. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no sources for that operation Ajax involved terrorist groups. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no page number. Objections to removal, and if so, why? Ultramarine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no verifiable sources for that the US funded and trained death squads. Objections to removal and if so why. Ultramarine 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay here's what I've come up with, digging up some old sources. I would see this replacing the second paragraph of the Guatemala section (and I would make a better transition from the first paragraph, which also mentions the coup). Also some of the material described above (sourced by the 32 documents) could be deleted. Let me know what you think, but I think this is exactly the kind of thing we should be looking for in this article (if there's any formatting errors or type-o's we can obviously fix that).-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See no obvious problems, except that most relate to the an early period when the civil war was less intense. Regardles, the opposing views in User:Ultramarine/Sandbox should also be included. Ultramarine 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) See no mention of death squads. Ultramarine 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I added in the new stuff I originally posted here. I also deleted the stuff cited from the 32 primary documents which Ultramarine originally wanted removed, and also removed some language about "death squads" (I'll have to look back and see if there is more). I think what we have now is better, providing better sources while still making some of the same arguments that were present before but were not sourced. I think the whole thing could be edited a bit for clarity, probably proceeding chronologically is a good bet. Let me know what you think though.
Also to Ultramarine, there is a paragraph (it begins "In 1995 CIA aid was stopped") which uses your document. I'm not sure if you added that in or someone else, but it seems to discuss the basic points you wanted to make, although not talking about the effort to prevent an undemocratic coup. Perhaps you can just make some changes/additions to that paragraph?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1. We should clearly state when the civil war started as well. The source [35] does say that military aid resumed in 1985, if you want to dispute this, add a source. Obviously the US cannot be responsible for deaths when there is no support.
2. Again, that is like stating we should have a graphic description of rapes by Italian soldier, for example, since they are in NATO.
3. Will do.
4. OR synthesis, that the army in Guatemala committed many crimes under a 36 year long civil war, and some members of the force probably were in death squads, does not mean that the US is responsible for all those crimes by giving aid during some of these years. You have to provide a source linking US to such crimes, not insinuating that the US is responsible for "200,000 deaths", "the army routinely engaged in torture and rape", and "genocide". Ultramarine 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You doubt that aid was discontinued, you provide the source. Your personal opinions regarding US training (presumably every single soldier in Guatemala since the US can be blamed for any rape and thus anyone picked out) is unsourced. If you had a source linking the US to a rape, then it would still not be appropriate with graphic details. Again, your personal opinion that the US was responsible for a large share of all the crimes is not interesting, give a source or remove it. Militaries are perfectly capable to be brutal without US teaching. Ultramarine 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"The ICJ refused to render judgment on the imputability of any direct acts by the Contras to the United States because of lacking evidence; the court did, however, make clear that the United States could be held liable for any acts it undertook relative to the state of Nicaragua and that this might include acts by the Contras. In their judgment, the ICJ found the United States liable for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras; for the mining of harbors, flyovers, and military attacks; for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law"; and held the United States liable for reparations and immediate cessation of all such proscribed activity."
This is incorreact. Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, from the voted on sentences "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America". [19]
They also stated, referring to this, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them." [19]
Exact quotes please from the judgement regarding the the US was liable for acts by the Contras, or for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras, or for for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law". Ultramarine 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Point 2:
Point 3:
Point 4:
Point 5:
Point 6:
Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;
Point 8:
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect; [36]
You are focusing on one point of 16 Ultramarine, ignoring the other 15 points that, to my knowledge, make the US look bad: that the US broke international law. 216.60.70.61 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The graphic rape and torture scenes are inflammatory and only intended to evoke an emotinal response. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for these acts. Since objections has been raised that "Soviet Bloc police states" is POV language, then these long paragraphs should definitely be removed. Ultramarine 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The holocaust article manages without this because it is required reading of anyone in the west who manages to graduate from University, because it has entire museums on at least three different continents devoted to nothing but those graphic descriptions, because it has multiple tv and feature films devoted to reconstructing precisely such graphic descriptions, because it has entire holidays devoted to reminding people of those graphic descriptions, and because any time Israel wants to kill more Arabs local jewish leaders start dropping crocodile tears and reminding everyone of the holocaust by reciting graphic descriptions.
Point me to even a museum that reminds people about the multiple genocides and massacres committed by the Guatemalan military -- using U.S. money and U.S. weaponry and U.S. logistical support -- and i'll be happy to cut the description from the article. Otherwise, the material is justifiably included.
Why are we including allegations when the title does not mention this? Like from Cuba's government and state censored press. Ultramarine 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious that you feel stepped on your toes, Ultramarine. Maybe you should back off a bit and focus on something else, because (although I don't really care about the location of this article) this is a perfect example of "no concensus" for a move. No hard feelings, #29 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did we reach consensus to change the title from 'Allegation of state terrorism by the United States' to 'State terrorism by the United States'? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So is it 'no removals without consensus' or 'no additions without consensus'? Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Controversial Wikipedia articles usually have a section with opposing views. So I am working on one. Suggestions welcome.
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)If this article were a comprehensive examination of current and past US foreign policy then some of your points would be relevant as responses to criticism. However, this article lists some examples of terrorism perpetrated by the US gov't, and as such, going in the order of your bullet points: 1. the reasons given for the underlying US policy which includes terrorism; 2. the alleged lack of US terror against democratic gov'ts (not true in 1953 Iran, against Arbenz, Chile 1972 and many other examples); 3. the number of victims (again, not true since WWII, since the US achieved superpower status, the US has been number one in number of people killed as part of its wars, offical and unofficial); 4. the lack of US media focus on other conflict zones; 5. the examples of US soldiers committing atrocities without official approval; 6. the alleged current "reformed" activities of WHINSEC; and 7. the policies of other friendly nations, are all irrelevant to the documented terrorist actions in the past. Think about it, we are talking about history not how good or bad we think we feel about current policy or about the context of other policies. Having said that, I am all for including opposing views and if there are pertinent criticims of the article I for one would be all ears.-- NYCJosh 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You points may help explain some points of US policy. However I find far more important the influx of anti-communists from Eastern Europe at the start of the Cold War, and their effect on US foreign policy through diaspora politics in the United States, as well as their integration into American intelligence services. See for example Blowback - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy. -- Petri Krohn 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the first two points are great and should be included in some manner, however the bottom four seem to stray, if they are in direct relation to a particular claim it should be noted. The last point given seems the most far off. Saying soldiers kill people often, but they are not sanctioned to kill civilians would seem obvious, just attempt to connect which areas you are defending and it will look tighter. -- SixOfDiamonds 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
NYCJosh is right in all of his points, and he doesn't need "sources" for them because they are general observations about directions you want this page to be taken. As your response to his point indicates, your bullet points above have little -- if anything -- to do with the page in its current form, but instead introduce an entirely different set of debates about what can be called terrorism, what actions.atrocities/killings does the U.S. ultimately deserve responsibility for, what is the nature of the international legal situation, and so forth.
Most of them are far beyond the scope of this page. The only thing that this page is concerned with -- as NYCJosh deftly pointed out -- is historical facts: what did the United States do, when did it do it, and how is it that people perceive the U.S. as responsible. Your points don't address that, but instead deal with meta-questions: What is responsibility? What is "terrorism", and why is it bad? and so forth.
Once again: i am totally in favor of including opposing viewpoints; if you had been around when i was dealing with NuclearUmpf then you'd remember that i, in fact, pushed to take the page in just such a direction. However, he -- and his cadre of supporters -- made it quite clear at that time that anything they considered to be offensive would not be allowed, regardless of its relevance to the discussion we had agreed upon.
Thus, this page has gotten saddled with the brutish, boring task of simply enumerating those historical facts about international terrorism disseminated by the U.S. Fortunately, however, a page that deals exclusively with the doctrine of State Terrorism has already been created. Insofar as your material deals with general concepts, it is more suitably placed there. For the other stuff, read my criticisms above. Stone put to sky 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's on-topic, no problem. If it's off-topic, though, it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime I've begun the cleanup effort by removing links in the lead to vanity presses, non-notable web magazines (those without a Wikipedia article), non-notable organizations (those without a Wikipedia article), and articles which do not specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorism. That leaves Chomsky as the only ICJ accuser, and Chomsky and Cohn as the only overall accusers. Please defend the removed sources individually on talk before re-adding, arguing why they meet WP:RS and where they specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorist organizations. - Merzbow 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Gladly. I expect quick and detailed explanations why each of these satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.
“ | Richard Heinberg is one of the world's foremost Peak Oil [educators]...is the author of eight books...a Core Faculty member of New College of California...and a Research Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute.... His monthly MuseLetter has been included in Utne Magazine’s annual list of Best Alternative Newsletters. Since 2002, he has given over three hundred lectures on oil depletion...to a wide variety of audiences—from insurance executives to peace activists, from local and national elected officials to Jesuit volunteers.... | ” |
I took it from his website; material from published professionals in the field of study is clearly allowed per wikipolicy. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, the referenced page is a sourced work published widely across the internet and in media publications.
You both need to do better than that. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Author is published in Counterpunch and Globalresearch; a search on his name in Google turns up at least 200 separate articles published by various websites. He is a political commentator who reports primarily on conflicts in third-world nations and military campaigns by the United States. Clearly, a professional writing in the subject of his specialty, and in addition the source is up there for no reason other than to prove that "numerous people" actually are talking about this subject. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Another one:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/ - Some page maintained by an activist who holds no academic post, he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article. - Merzbow 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No academic post? You've got to be kidding. From Rojas' website:
“ | Teaching in Britain 1985-2002:
(Open University, University of East London, and other universities in the UK) (undergraduate level) Teaching in Britain 2001- : ( University College London (Development Planning Unit), and other universities in the UK ) (postgraduate level) Education: BSc, MPhil, PhD University teaching experience: Chile, People's Republic of China, and Britain Publications: Books published in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, Spain and the United States by major publishing houses ( i.e. Harper and Row in the US). Scores of articles and papers in major magazines and newspapers in Latin America, Spain, Germany and the United States). Main subjects: China, and Latin America as outlined in the sections on research. Visiting Examinations: 1992-1997 External Examiner at Birbeck College,University of London, for Development Economics. 2001-2003 Visiting Examiner at DPU, University College London, University of London, to the Board of Examiners in MSc Development and Planning. Consultancy: 1986-1999 BBC World Service ( China, South East Asia and Latin America) 1989-1999 Centre for Chinese Studies, SBU 2003-2006 Globalization and Europeanisation Network in Education website. ( http://www.genie-tn.net) |
” |
Finally, his entire website is set up as a research tool for people interested in "Political Economy":
“ | RRojas Databank introduce students and researchers to the political economy of the global system of nations and social clases, as a discipline dealing with relations of dependency, interdependency and domination between nations and social groups within and between nations. | ” |
The website is a repository of data from the World Bank, IMF, WTO, Columbia University, Rojas' own publications, and has had over 4,000,000 hits from 160 different countries.
Looks like a relevant authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Even more:
From his Wikipedia page, E. San Juan, Jr.:
“ | San Juan has lectured abroad as Fulbright professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, lecturer at the Hogeschool in Antwerp, Belgium; visiting professor of literature at National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan; and resident fellow at the Rockefeller Foundation Center in Bellagio, Italy. He has won numerous awards, among them the MELUS Best Essay Award, Gustavus Myers Center Award, and Centennial Award for Literature, Cultural Center of the Philippines.
His works span a broad spectrum of fields and disciplines, from cultural studies, comparative literary scholarship, ethnic and racial studies, postcolonial theory, semiotics to philosophical inquiries in historical materialism.
|
” |
Looks like an authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Look again; first, this is a collation of various news sources; second, the article referenced was originally authored by The Reality of Aid, whose list of members ( http://www.realityofaid.org/about.php?id=6) certainly qualifies it as a notable organization. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is silly. Counterpunch has a wikipedia page, and therein is noted:
“ | Notable contributors to CounterPunch have included Robert Fisk, the late Edward Said, Tim Wise, Ralph Nader, M. Shahid Alam, Ward Churchill, Lila Rajiva, the late Tanya Reinhart, Frank "Chuck" Spinney and Alexander Cockburn's two brothers, Andrew and Patrick, both of whom write on the Middle East, Iraq in particular.
Some paleoconservative writers like Paul Craig Roberts and William Lind can also be found in CounterPunch. The site regularly publishes veteran radicals, such as Lenni Brenner, Fidel Castro, and the late Stew Albert, as well as younger authors such as Diane Christian, Joshua Frank, Norman Finkelstein, Ron Jacobs, Gary Leupp, Cynthia McKinney[1] and David Price. |
” |
The writer is James Petras,
“ | a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York,...an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and...co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed) and Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina | ” |
An article written by an academic who has authored at least one book (maybe two) published on the topic in question, and published in a widely read periodical that deals in political commentary. Clearly a valid source. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't get much more neutral than a priest -- and can't get much more authoritative than this one. From his webpage (found here: http://www.preda.org/frcullen.htm):
“ | In 1974, he established the Preda Foundation The People¹s Recovery Empowerment Development Assistance Foundation Inc. (PREDA) with Alex and Merly Ramirez Hermoso to help deal with the many problems and victims of abuse especially the victims of torture and military oppression by the Marcos martial law regime and its political supporters.
The Preda center on a hill overlooking Subic Bay became a sanctuary for those threatened with summary execution by the military. During the 1980¹s He campaigned successfully for the removal of the US Military bases and the establishment of economic zones to replace them. Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He has a weekly Sunday column in the Manila Times (Sunday Times), The Universe (UK) and the Sunday Examiner (HK). He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001 and 2003 Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001. He has testified before numerous Senate committees and the US congress in 2005. Numerous newspaper articles and television documentaries have reported the success of his work protecting children and campaigning for human rights. ITN/CNN broadcast a report that highlighted his work in releasing and caring for children and youth in subhuman conditions in Philippine prisons. Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001. Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001. |
” |
'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | Roland G. Simbulan, Convenor/Coordinator, Manila Studies Program
Vice Chancellor for Planning and Development and Professor in Development Studies and Public Management University of the Philippines Published Papers: Roland G. Simbulan, Effective Advocacy: Lessons from the People’s Anti- Bases Struggle, Quezon City: Ibon Foundation, 1992. 2. Roland G. Simbulan, “The Betrayal of the Poor”, Today national newspaper, November 6, 2000. 3. Roland G. Simbulan, “How the Battle for the Bases was Won”, www.boondocksnet.com, February, 1992. |
” |
'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop throwing up whatever randomly drifts to the top of a Google search, because that's what going on here. - Merzbow 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the issue here seems more to be one of you not reading the sources and simply challenging them off the top of your head. Add to that a healthy dose of what appears to be casual bigotry towards any source that doesn't originate in the United States and i think we've pretty much summed up the whole problem. Stone put to sky 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow and Ultramarine clearly have no idea about what research means. Suggesting that a source should not be used because it doesn't have a Wikipedia page is absurd. Redress is highly respected UK based NGO that specialises in torture, they have consultive status with the UN. Zed books is a highly respected specialised publisher, many Oxford University Professors publish with them. It seems that you only want to use mainstream American sources which completely goes against the very idea of Wikipedia, which should be global and should include all views. Pexise 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to have them handy. Not sure if they are in use already:
What relevance do those have other than to push a pov? One is a prominent leftist, another an openly anti-American leader, and the last a leader of a country were anti-American sentiment runs extremely strong. At best this is extremely unbalanced and pushes a clear viewpoint. -- MichaelLinnear 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; these are quotes regarding State Terrorism by the United States and meet all standards hitherto agreed upon for the page. You are not allowed to delete material simply because you don't like it, or don't agree with those responsible for creating it. Whether or not you consider these people "good americans" or "sympathetic to America" or "neutral regarding America" is irrelevant; the fact is that these statements have been made, they meet our agreed upon standards, and so they belong on the page.
If y'all would like to include some sort of commentary explaining that this is an encyclopedic treatment of the subject -- and not a direct indictment of the United States -- then feel free. I'd suggest you explain how this is merely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject that introduces the concepts, arguments, and evidence used by people to justify the phrase "State Terrorism by the United States". That is how this page is intended (and always has been), and if you wish to add that material the other editors here will be happy to aid you in any way we can.
We will not, however, allow you to delete this material. Stone put to sky 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. I will happily include counter-criticisms if they are relevant to this article.
Counter-criticisms of the concept of "State Terrorism" do not belong here; we have a separate wikipedia article (called, suitably enough, State terrorism) for that.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it i who suggested we include a section here that would allow a back-and forth over such ideas? But then, it got deleted per the insistence of several other editors here, of which -- hey? Weren't you the loudest one? Ah, well -- feeling the strain, now, are we?
Likewise, digressions into what "defenders of the SOA" think are equally irrelevant, because this simply isn't an article about the SOA. This is an article about State Terrorism by the United States, so a back-and-forth about the SOA is inappropriate (unless, that is, you care to create a separate section where we can include such criticisms?).
These quotes, however, have been up for nearly two years, maybe longer. Nobody has tried to delete them, and in that time you have been one of the most vocal critics and constraining forces on this page.
Now, just above clearly state that you will "start to delete" things unless you can post material that you think should be here even though it is clearly off-topic. What i find very interesting is that yes, indeed, you are beginning to do just that! In this case, demanding that material which for over two years you have never objected to nor ever suggested should be removed now be deleted. Stone put to sky 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a news and commentary site that collates work from professional writers, scholars, and activists. It is published in two languages, and has regular readership in Africa, Western Europe, and North America. It publishes independent news reports for which it has won recognition from several notable awards and standards organizations. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with material from this website. Stone put to sky 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"US Government funding and training of of Guatemalan 'Death Squads'" [12] [13]
Source number one is to unspecific. Which of these 32 documents support the allegation? Many speak of the opposite. The second source speaks only of a single person. Ultramarine 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Source one is by no means unspecific. Both of those links either directly link to summaries or themselves contain summaries of the content of the documents. The summaries are written by professional historians tasked with maintaining, collating, cataloging and cross-referencing the archives. The statements which these sources footnote are clearly supported by both these summaries and the content itself.
If the editors here are going to quibble over simple statements like "U.S. funding and training of Guatemalan Death Squads", then you should expect such voluminous sources in response. Virtually all of those 32 documents contains a direct reference to funding and/or training. Stone put to sky 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The second source outlines the career development of a man convicted of repeated acts of state terrorism and shows how, over a span of nearly four decades, the U.S. government aided and intervened on his behalf in an effort to advance his career and further empower him despite knowing of his long and horrendous list of crimes. It is a single, in-depth case.
The first source excerpts documents from a thirty five year period showing that the U.S. continued to fund, train, and politically support Guatemalan military leaders despite full knowledge of the extent of the Guatemalan state's atrocities. Yes, there are dissenting opinions; however, a dissenting opinion doesn't count unless it changes policy. The documents from the first source clearly show that despite repeated warnings and condemnations of the Guatemalan state apparatus and its primary, Washington-backed, -funded, and -trained leadership, the United States Government even yet maintained support and funding for the criminals. Stone put to sky 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Having already answered this specific question twice, i will not waste my time on it again. Please remember, however, that any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Why the long graphic rape description? That one of the persons involved spoke American English is not evidence for anything. Ultramarine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are already provided, and clearly support the statements and testimony. Regardless of how you might wish to remove it, the testimony occurred in a court-case that convicted the U.S. funded, Harvard-attending, SOA-commencement-giving, U.S. trained Gramajo-Morales of crimes that clearly qualify as terrorism. The testimony provides insight into what sort of torture these death-squads routinely engaged in, how they were managed, and the participation of at least one man "who spoke broken Spanish with a heavy North American accent" and who (unquoted, but in the testimony) was to deliver Sister Ortiz to the U.S. Embassy.
Call me silly if you want, but i doubt that the North American was from Canada.
Stone put to sky
09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Material does follow policy. Moreover, it has gained a long consensus. There are clearly stated reasons for including it. You have yet to make a case that it should be deleted.
The material was included precisely as a result of your insistence that all claism be backed up.
You made the bed. Stone put to sky 11:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The material clearly follows policy; many reasons have already been given for why it should remain; and you are trying to buck an already established consensus.
You set the standards for inclusion in this article; it was because of your own insistence that every statement in the article be sourced that we have found it necessary to include this testimony. Clearly, the portion of the article in question is dealing with the case of Sister Ortiz, who was awarded several millions in U.S. dollars (which were never received) because she suffered torture, rape and other abuse at the hands of a squad of Guatemalan military people.
The testimony was given in the U.S. courts and accepted as evidence therein. It demonstrates that what is asserted about Sister Ortiz' case has been accepted as truth; it demonstrates the severity of the abuse and torture Guatemalan victims generally suffered; and it demonstrates that the abuse was clearly suffered while she was under the nominal "care" of the state. All of these things contribute to the various points that are required for an act to qualify as "terrorist" in nature, according to the FBI, CIA, and other definitions of terrorism.
Because the testimony is able to bear witness to all these various facets of the issue at hand, it is extremely powerful. Because it is so succinct, it is very valuable. Thus, because it is succinct and powerful, it is included here.
The material will remain, and please be advised that if you attempt to delete it your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you people have time to get any work done?
The article could use a few graphic descriptions of violence like the rape scene. It is important to convey that this is not just some abstract issue about whether the acts of an abstract entity like a nation-state called the U.S. may be described under the rubric of "terrorism" but it is a very real issue with very real victims and consequences. It should never be just a dry recitation of places, dates and numbers of victims.-- NYCJosh 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The passages about Guatemala are necessary to provide a personal account of the methods used by the US-supported death-squads to terrorize the population. The mass killings (bodies in pits), the lack of proper burial (the rats), the torture/rape tactics all served to terrorize the population in a very effective way. It is not endless--only several sentences, and is not "torture porn"--the reader is not led to identify with the torturers and is not particularly graphic in describing in anatomical details.
I would call for additional such human narration for countries other than Guatemala to provide the perspective of the victims, bring the discussion down from the abstract level to the human level, and to provide some specifics on the METHODS of terror. As a former graduate student of history, I know that the emphasis on individual human descriptions of important historical pheonmena (to the extent that they are in some sense typical or that they shed light on the larger abstract historical reality under discussion) has been an important trend. It's bottom up history not top-down history. -- NYCJosh 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in an enclyclopedia bottom-up history should dominate in terms of prominence over succint dry accounts (if you look at my additions to this article, you'll note that they're just about all in the latter category). But there is an important place for the former for the reasons given. -- NYCJosh 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Your objections are irrelevant, Merzbow; the content is in no way "soap-box" ranting and your attempt to portray it as such is laughable. There is consensus for the content, there is good reason for the content (see above), and it conforms both to Wikipedia policy as well as the contrived standards of content you and Ultramarine have devised for this page.
Please understand that if you try to delete the material your actions will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s." The OR implication is that the US is responsible for all of these deaths when the in fact the US had cut of military aid during much of this period. Ultramarine 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That is pure claptrap; the statement implies only that the U.S. was a responsible party, and in no way suggests full and sole culpability.
As for the funding, the U.S. legislature cut off aid during that period; clearly, you are forgetting the secret CIA aid (quoted -- and sourced -- elsewhere in this article) that continued to be sent. Stone put to sky 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I only use indentation when it seems appropriate; typically, it's when i'm commenting on a block of text or engaging in a digression from the main point of a conversation. When in a dialogue on the talk page, however, i do not consider it appropriate.
Nor do i consider your request to be all that civil; i don't spend my time correcting your english or formatting options and i think it's a small thing to ask you to exercise restraint and show similar respect.
Finally: no, it is not necessary for us to introduce any such extraneous commentary. The text already makes quite clear that primary responsibility for these atrocities lay with the Guatemalan military, and that the U.S. is culpable only for the training, funding, political support and political leadership of the primary actors. Stone put to sky 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the text most certainly does state that, and the sources i have provided -- which are summaries of declassified CIA documents -- clearly show that funding, training, political support and political leadership were all provided to the Guatemalan leadership of that era.
You can't argue with declassified documentation, Ultramarine. It's all clearly there, and in no way controversial. Unless you can come up with a better argument, then the text will remain as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are not reading the sources:
"The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos. This funding was seen as necessary to make these services more capable partners with the station, particularly in pursuing anti-communist and counternarcotics objectives. The CIA, with the knowledge of ambassadors and other State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as the Congress, continued this aid after the termination of overt military assistance in l990.
There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cutoff of military aid in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995."
It clearly says the CIA continued to fund them. I understand you want to post counter arguments, but you are not looking well when you do not read the sources. -- 74.73.16.230 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) More from this source:
Relations between the US and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The human rights situation deteriorated further in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as the Guatemalan army--in which the intelligence and security services played a central role--waged a ruthless scorched-earth campaign against the communist guerrillas as well as noncombatants. In the course of this campaign in a country with a population that has never been more than approximately 10 million, more than 100,000 Guatemalans died. Through the 1980's and into the 1990's, the human rights situation gradually improved as the insurgency waned, but successive Department of State human rights reports continued to document egregious violations, including murders of political opponents. Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid.
The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other US agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala.
The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.
So the US cannot be blamed for all of the deaths in the civil war. Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again: there is nothing in the text that "blames" the U.S. for "all" the deaths in these incidents of state terrorism. The article clearly connects the U.S. to support -- through funding, training, and political protection -- of the Guatemalan military as it perpetrated many instances of torture, genocide, and terrorism. That's all the article says, and it says it just fine the way things are worded. Stone put to sky 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The relevant portions of the "above material" have already been included. If you peruse the article, mention is made of the vicissitudes in U.S. public policy, with attribution. The fluff, however, has been properly trimmed.
Once again: while it is perfectly appropriate to include material that shows the U.S. government did worry some over this policy, what is relevant to the article -- and the only thing relevant to the article, at this point -- is that the policy of support -- through funding and training -- did not change.
That is what is relevant to an entry titled "State terrorism by the United States". Again -- these are standards which you yourself engineered and insisted upon, with great prejudice and vehemence. Unless you are willing to change your own policy standards, then there is simply no way we can allow extraneous counter-arguments into the article. Stone put to sky 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You need to look harder. Some of the statements are from that report and some from related documents. It doesn't specifically mention Ward but he was the station Chief so was held responsible and fired. I also used a summary from George Washington university.
I'm interested in how you can have an opposing view when the U.S. government actually admits guilt. Are we talking about the "end justifies the means" defense?
Wayne
16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Wayne, for that comment. I think you have pretty much demolished Ultramarine's line of argument, and i much appreciate the rest. ;-) Stone put to sky 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Why is this graphic description of this particular human rights violation included. The ICJ stated that the US did not have sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for their human rights violations. Ultramarine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
How strange.
First, the ICJ never said any such thing. They clearly laid responsibility for the overall human rights violations upon the United States; that's why the U.S. was found guilty of an "illegal use of violence", or whatever the statement was.
What the ICJ refused to consider, however, was that every act by the Contras would fall to the responsibility of the United States.
Now, this has all been explained quite clearly above. Apparently you didn't understand it, then. I suggest you go back and review, because you are badly misinterpreting the ICJ ruling.
Next, i would like to ask if we are to presume from the above questions that you think:
A) Because the ICJ stated the U.S. was not responsible for all of the Contras' human rights violations, that
B) we should question the inclusion of the passage you cite above?
Because to me that seems like a very strange leap in logic. Stone put to sky 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; you are selectively quoting from the ICJ. This has already been explained to you above. I am not going to go back into it. Either you are able to understand, or you're not. Regardless, your attempt to force this artificial and inaccurate interpretation is easily refuted.
The material remains, unaltered. Any attempt to delete it will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Imputable: To ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible. The court ruling is stating that The US broke the law by funding and providing materials including that document, however Bob killing Jane was in the end Bobs fault. I posted the definition since it seems to be ignored. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Laying of mines, yes; odd how you fail to mention training of the Contras, teaching them torture techniques, funding the Contras, setting tactical and strategic goals along the lines of "low intensity warfare" (which means "kill and torture unarmed peasants but try to avoid the military"), and political protection in the UN and other international bodies.
The ICJ decision said considerably more than you are alleging here, and included the U.S. as the primary font of a long list of crimes. Stone put to sky 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it did. You are simply wrong -- yet again, as you often seem to be, lately -- and please be advised that if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.
Let me also remind you that you are performing WP:OR. There are plenty of sources which reference the ICJ ruling and unambiguously support the wording provided on the page. There will be no more discussion of this until you can come up with an authoritative legal or interpretive source that supports your perspective. And please be advised: if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again: Ultramarine, you are performing original research. Unless you can find a source which supports your interpretation of the ICJ ruling, the material will be re-worked and the quotation deleted.
If you try to delete other material in retaliation, your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.
If you try to force inclusion of this selective and clearly misleading quotation while excluding material that is more accurate, your actions will be considered vandalism.
There is no middle ground here: either find a source that supports your interpretation of that particular passage of the ICJ, re-work the material so that it provides an accurate sense of the ICJ ruling, or delete it.
And please remember that if you don't, i will - per the consensus of virtually every legal authority on the planet. Stone put to sky 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We should add regarding the "Torture manuals" that the CIA claims that they were intended to "moderate" activities already being done. Ultramarine 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Unless we have concrete evidence of what was actually being done at the time then there is no possible way for us to back up that statement.
Of course, if there were evidence that the U.S. and CIA knew what was being done at the time, that would of course implicate them as at least vicarious participants.
So feel free to do the research. i look forward to reading over your discoveries. Stone put to sky 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"Claims" by the CIA are not allowed unless they are backed up with evidence. We have no evidence that the former methods of torture were in fact "worse" than the later ones the CIA tried to teach. Unless you can come up with a source that shows what methods of torture were used previously, then we must conclude that these claims by the CIA are questionable.
Otherwise you are guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Stone put to sky 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think the CIA side should be presented in whole. I will restate this, but I think the opposing side should be presented in each section by adding a criticism subsection. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Opposing claims may only be included so long as they are backed up by properly sourced evidence and relevant to the text. Your sources do not deny that the U.S. participated in these acts; rather, they only explain the U.S. government's justification for why they felt their support for these methods of torture, genocide, rape and mass murder were justified. Stone put to sky 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed we may; but only insofar as they are relevant to the article.
If you wish to include sources here disputing the events in question, then they must address the specific issue of State Terrorism, the specific incidents of state support, or the specific instances of terrorism mentioned. This is the standard to which you have held the other editors on this page, and this is the standard to which you will be now held. Stone put to sky 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no violation of NPOV here; i know that because you -- one of the most vehement deletionists on this page -- are responsible for laying down the rules to which all material on this page must conform.
It was you who insisted that all initial statements must include reference to "State Terrorism" and attribute it to the United States; it was you who insisted that any discussion or attempts to elaborate upon definitions of "State Terrorism" and their relevance to actions by the U.S. would not be allowed; it was you who insisted that no material could be included unless it directly referenced the claims of state terrorism; and it was you who insisted that each and every fact on this page be sourced and referenced, no matter how trivial.
Obviously, with such standards we could not possibly be in violation of NPOV; similarly, since you clearly felt these standards were fair to impose on us, the other editors, you could not possibly feel that they are now restrictive and unfair.
Unless your material conforms to these three rigid guidelines, the material cannot be included. Stone put to sky 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"According to an article in the Asia Times, "Sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of US regional policy over the past quarter-century." This is from an unsourced commentary and seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted. Ultramarine 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. That's easily enough done by looking up the articles by Seymour Hersh, which is who the Asia Times are quoting. Why don't you do that, Ultramarine? It'd be a good-faith gesture, and improve the article.
Of course, if you refuse to do so and instead simply attempt to delete the passage, we will interpret that as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; i am sure you haven't tried very hard, because i clearly remember the article by Sy Hersh that made these claims. I believe they were in the New Yorker.
Again: either put up, or the material remains. Stone put to sky 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The author of the article (M K Bhadrakumar) is the one stating the passage above. I am not sure what the drama is about? Its clear as day in the article that is used as a source. The author is a writer for the Asia Times, which is a WP:RS source ... I am not seeing the argument here. Please either of you fill me in. Thank you. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark. Those are all much appreciated. Stone put to sky 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"Operation Ajax, which involved organised riots and the training of right-wing terrorist groups" None of the given sources mention "terrorist" groups. Ultramarine 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Ultramarine; the citation will stand until either you go find the book and give us a clear citation showing that it does not, in fact, state what is asserted, or somebody else does.
If you cannot be bothered to go check on a source, then you will at least remain patient while others do. Stone put to sky 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"an attempted coup in France (1961)" Seems to refer to some very obscure conpiracy theory. The given source is " Pierre Abramovici and Gabriel Périès, La Grande Manipulation, éd. Hachette, 2006" What is this? A book? Then page numbers would be required. Regardless, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article. Ultramarine 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; in France, it's a widely accepted account of the post-war situation. A few folks here can read french, and believe it or not just because something isn't written in english doesn't mean that it's an "extraordinary" claim.
This is a widely respected academic history of the post-war situation in France. If you want to argue against it, then please come up with some sourced material. Otherwise, the material stays.
And, as always: any attempt to remove it against the established consensus will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. It's not our responsibility to buy the book for you, prop open your eyelids, and give you shock therapy until you've completed it. Stone put to sky 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You all are acting like children. The source is verifiable, go search to see if the book exists. The source itself is then verifiable as existing. Your issue is then if the source is stating XYZ due to a lack of page numbers. While I agree page numbers would be more helpful, if there are no quotes being used, you cannot really reference a page to explain an overarching theme of a book. I would also be interested in reading the details of those arbitration cases. Please provide some links. Thank you. -- SixOfDiamonds 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro. [3] [4] [5]"
No involvement by the CANF and the US, so should be removed. Should if anything be cited as evidence againt state terrorism, since the it was the US who stopped the assassintion. Ultramarine 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this is just so silly.
First, it has three different sources, one of which is from the UN. Second, it clearly documents the relationship between Mel Martinez and a famed anti-castro terrorist organization.
This is yet again another instance of supporting information that has been included to clarify statements that appear elsewhere in the article; in this particular instance, that "Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF."
You have complained that we have cuban sources in the article; but here we have one source from the Miami-Herald and another from UN testimony, and you are complaining about it being "irrelevant".
Sorry; it's relevance as primary source material in support of an originating thesis is indisputable.
Once again: any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Granma is a valid source. That's all there is to it.
We are sorry that you have a prejudicial attitude towards the content presented there, but that's beside the point. It is a valid source, and the material remains. Stone put to sky 07:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We are sorry that you are prejudiced against Granma as a source. Nevertheless, it remains valid and the material remains. Stone put to sky 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine, you are obviously prejudiced against Granma as a source. That doesn't concern us, though, because it remains a valid source and the material remains. Stone put to sky 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think that it's "more notable", Seabhcan; that's precisely the point. If we cannot count on Granma to communicate the Cuban Government's legal position and official findings, then who can we count on?
The CIA?
(P.S. -- hey, Seabhcan -- how do you pronounce that damn jumble you call a name, anyway?) Stone put to sky 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Granma, there is not evidence to give. The source meets all qualifications of WP:RS WP:V. There is nothing in either of those that says Cuban publications are not valid, or that views of the Cuban government are not WP:RS, if that is the argument. This is absurd the bickering over Cuba as a source in any form, and unless someone posts something other then, they do not have freedom of the press, which is not a valid argument, this seems to be closed. PS no I do no thave to prove the New York Times is valid, you have to prove it is not. Every source added does not come with a declaration from the author that they were not lying and fully backed by the president of the publishing company/network, then certified by the U.N. Stop asking people to prove nothing. You have an accusation, its that it does not meet criteria, then back it up and prove it. Stating a group says its really the government stating XYZ does not then make it invalid as the government would be a larger WP:RS source, and further a better source. --
SixOfDiamonds
20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that state-sponsored coups can necessarily be labeled terrorism - unless part of their aim can reasonably be considered to be inspiring terror. Perhaps these can be moved to their own article, and have a link to that article added in the See Also section?
While i admit that a coup in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as an act of state-sponsored terrorism (the coup against Idi Amin was a blessing, right?), coups that are sponsored by a foreign government against a democratically-elected or populist-government are clearly a) political violence, b) illegal, and c) intended to force a political accommodation against the agreed upon will of the people.
These are the essence of all definitions of "terrorism" so far posted, in each and every point. Moreover, in the case of Guatemala the relevance of the planning of the coup is substantiated by the assassination lists which were drawn up and perhaps acted upon as well as the emergence of "death squads" and other "political enforcers" in the aftermath. The realization of these atrocities was contingent upon the coup itself.
I find it hard to believe that you would seriously argue that a foreign-sponsored coup against a popular government -- which is the epitome of state-sponsored political violence against a people -- does not qualify as an act of state terrorism. Stone put to sky 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. Since we have such a source there is no need for any further talk about it.
Thank you, Merzbow, for putting an end to the discussion. I look forward to further contributions by you in the future. Stone put to sky 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass blanking of properly sourced text without consensus. That would be great. Badagnani 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As some of you may have figured out, editors have divergent views about some of the material included in this article. Accordingly, deleting significant content without first raising the issue on this page is inappropriate and borders on underhanded sabotage. This may not be true for all articles but it is true here.
Also, deleting material in a sneaky way is pointless because people will notice, restore your deletions and you will look like you were trying to pull a fast one and not acting in good faith. If you have a deletion, post it here with your argument for why it does not belong. -- NYCJosh 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course we can then run into arguments about whether a particular bit of material conforms to policy. In cases like this it is best to discuss before removing. Unfortunately on a topic like this it becomes very difficult to evaluate whether some material does or doesn't conform, which to me underlines the importance of discussion. I agree with you on the futility of setting one policy against another in these discussions. -- John 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
New people here always try to use rational means to thread the needle. However, i would like to point out that Merzbow, Ultramarine, Harrison, Morton Devonshire and the present-not-in-name-only MONGO have all made it clear that their ultimate goal is the deletion of the entire page, all content, without discrimination, always.
For three years, now, it's been this way. They are not going to change. Whatever reasons they come up with now for deleting material, once having managed to get portions or whatever taken away they will begin to work on the next batch.
Chossudovsky is a respected Canadian political commentator, editor of a widely regarded newsletter, and a tenured professor of political science; his commentary on the 9/11 incidents may be controversial, but they are well within the realm of appropriate academic speculation. Isaac Newton was a fierce proponent of Alchemy; that doesn't change the fact that gravity is still a relevant theory. Giordano Bruno believed he could practice witches, demons, and sorcery, but doesn't change the fact that he was a significant proponent of the Copernican model. There is no good reason to delete Chossudovsky's material.
Similarly, there is no evidence of violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:RS, and the only portion of the article that needs to be cleaned up at the moment is the badly misleading, highly selective quote from the ICJ in the Nicaragua section.
Now, there are two ways to go about something like that: either include an entire section on the ICJ, or give a brief -- one- or two-sentence summary -- of its findings, or simply link to the existing Nicaragua vs. United States wiki page and allow that to do all the talking. The cadre of deletionists, however, will not allow this; they insist upon inclusion of their misleading, selective quotation; only their misleading, selective quotation; and nothing but their own distorted, misleading commentary.
Please notice, however, that in addition to such improprieties there are others far more serious: the above commentators insist (based upon principles listed below) that there must be evidence provided to support a general statement like "The United States has been accused by numerous legal scholars, governments, political figures and human rights groups of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism". Now, regardless of how patently and obviously true such a statement is, the editors here are enjoined to "show sources" that it is indeed the case.
When we do, the sources we provide are systematically attacked as "not authoritative enough" -- even though they are all from published, professional journalists, scholars, human rights groups, political figures, and legal scholars! This is the sort of thing we constantly go through on this page: a simple statement that says nothing more than that many people around the world are talking about these ideas is challenged as "not being sourced" or "not having proof", and then when proof is provided the complaint changes, and the sampling of a large spectrum of people is rejected as not being authoritative enough.
On this one sentence in particular, the deletionist editors here have work tirelessly to try and whittle down the sources and re-work the introduction to say "Noam Chomsky says that the United States has been accused of...."
That is not editing in good faith; what would be an easily accepted statement in other articles becomes a point of contention, here. What would be considered nitpicking and bad-faith editing in other articles is elevated here to policy.
I and most of the other contributing editors here have no problem with people wanting to make this page better; however, many here have made it clear they do not want to see this subject treated in any way other than flat denial. This group has further clarified themselves by holding 6 AfDs on this article, not including their posturing (as above), with the phantastical straw polls and mutual back-slapping and so on.
Currently, the other editors here are doing nothing more than holding them to their own standards; artificial and arbitrary standards have been imposed upon contributing editors by this handful of protesters. I personally can testify that, for over two years, every attempt to communicate, reason, or negotiate with them has been met with scorn and disdain. Their insistence has always been that:
A) All formal, predicating content must be related to and include a phrase approximating a claim of "State Terrorism by the United States"
B) All supporting material and any statements must be sourced in every detail, no matter how small or trivial
C) All material must be directly floating condemnations of State Terrorism, or directly referencing a specific set of supporting facts within such a statement.
Each of those rules in itself is already extreme and, by the standards of other Wikipedia pages, unreasonable. They are made many times more frustrating and aggravating when applied with the vigor that the deletionists here insist upon. Moreover, the result has been to steer this page into a list of atrocities with which the U.S. is directly linked. I ask: what else could it be, with rules like that?
My point, in case it's not clear, is this: it is not the contributing editors who have created the current form of this page. It is the deletionists, and their intransigent, obstinate insistence upon these artificial standards of quality.
Now, what has become a clear pattern over these last few AfDs is this: an AfD is called, and that gets the attention of the Wiki-ops. They send someone over -- in this case, i believe it's Sancho? -- who in all good faith jumps in and starts to try and make heads or tails of this morass. Suggestions are tabled, and attempts are made to try and massage the consensus here into something more cooperative.
Unfortunately, what the advisers and arbitrators rarely realize -- or at least, rarely realize until they've worked at it for a good while -- is that this page is really just bickering over a single issue: its right to exist.
There are several contributors here who will balk and resist at any and every attempt to expand, hone, or in any way improve the content of this page. Their only desire is to see all the content deleted -- and if you don't believe me, then go back and look at the six failed AfDs they've participated in. Or review the talk-page history. Or review the history of their edits.
This group rarely introduces content; when they do, the portions posted are poorly enough edited and suffer from such terrible grammar and syntax that they almost qualify as vandalism. Any attempt to change or clean up said passages is met with obstinate resistance, even when the material is clearly irrelevant.
Finally, the material they present rarely -- if ever -- adheres to their own, pre-established standards, and when requests are made that it be tightened up they are vehemently rejected; those requests must then become demands, and those are usually rejected; finally, those demands must simply become deletes, and when that happens we are offered a quid pro quo: either allow the material to remain, or a new round of deletions will begin again on the main page.
This happened most recently with Ultramarine, and if everyone will look just above they will see the offer clearly made: either we allow Ultramarine's content to remain, or he will begin to delete material. The implication is clearly that he won't delete the material if his material is allowed to stay, and i ask: is there any more clear violation of Wikipedia standards? His offer is unambiguous, and goes something like this: "If you allow my content to stay and do not challenge its validity, relevance, or authenticity, then i will not delete material that consensus has already established as valid, relevant, and authentic. But if you do not adhere to my demands, then i will begin to delete this material, regardless of how the community might protest."
In other words: you allow my poor content to remain, and i won't vandalize the page.
And indeed, what do we see, now, these last three or four days?
Continual attempts by Ultramarine to delete large portions of the article, against the established consensus and in contravention to virtually every wiki-policy yet authored. We had to freeze the page to stop him.
Sincerely -- Stone put to sky 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No, dear fellows, i must inform you that you are wrong.
First, the citations are nothing more than sources demonstrating that the statement "numerous [commentators, authoritative and professional alike,] have accused the U.S. of state terrorism". The point of contention in this statement has always been the plural "commentators" and the adjective "numerous", which you and several others here have consistently tried to re-write as "Noam Chomsky". Your objections were that the statement was not sourced.
For the purposes of our current requirements, then, these sources are more than adequate: they demonstrate that there are official political, legal and bureaucratic organizations that have officially taken this stance; they demonstrate that professional commentators around the world have taken this stance; they demonstrate that legal scholars and human rights groups have taken this stance; and finally they demonstrate that academics within this area of expertise have taken this stance. Now, since it was y'all who demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like trivial facts require extraordinary documentation.
Secondly, i really don't care what you think or don't think about CETIM. It's currently on permanent advisory to the UN (as noted above); it's a formal research institute publicly funded; and it has a special research section devoted to International Law. It will most certainly stay. Finally: since y'all demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to rewrite your own rules and pretend like trivial facts require authoritative documentation.
Thirdly, the Zoltan Grossman site is widely cited as source material; it is published research by an academic well within his area of expertise; it provides clearly cited sources; and finally, it was published by a widely read publication. Say what you like, but that clearly qualifies as valid source material for wikipedia. In addition, if you can't wrap your brain around the idea of a professional "Native American Studies'" researcher as having relevance to this topic, then you are really out of touch with what is being built here. And lastly, i'd like to remind you that it was you and your comrades who contended this trivial statement; you all wanted documentation and we have given it. Now that it's there you're not allowed to change the rules and pretend like your whim is the rule for this page. The source stays.
Fourth, the "non-notable" political blog is the personal website of a published journalist writing in a formal and official manner about his area of expertise. Moreover, it is offered up only as evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators who are or have accused the U.S. of state terrorism. That's all we need to qualify that particular statement. Since y'all demanded documentation, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like you didn't ask for it.
Finally, there is no reason to delete material simply because it comes from Chossudovsky; you will need to do better than that. Chossudovsky is a widely published political analyst who is editor and founder of a news and commentary site published in two different languages, with regular readership on three continents, and whose authors include a long list of high-profile academics, journalists, authors and ex-bureaucrats. He is a tenured professor and head of two different grass-roots political groups, both of which deal (if i'm not mistaken) with issues of international law and human rights. He is a far, far cry from a mere "conspiracy theorist". Whatever is said about him on other webpages is -- as in the words of our beloved Ultramarine -- utterly irrelevant to this page. Here we do things according to our own consensus, and -- as Ultramarine is so fond of saying -- if other pages want to make that mistake then fine. They may. For our page, however, you will need to do better than ad hominem attacks against Chossudovsky to justify deletion.
Moreover, since it was you, Morty -- along with your cadre of fellow deletionists -- who demanded that the most trivial and uncontestable statement on the page be backed up by sources, you now have no leg to stand on by decrying that a trivial statement is backed up by unremarkable sources. The content of the statement is clear: there are numerous people and groups around the world who have condemned actions by the United States as instances of State Terrorism. Regardless of how deeply you might object to that statement -- and it is clear from the repeated attempts you have made to delete this page that they are deep and fierce -- nevertheless, the statement clearly is substantiated by factual, incontrovertible sources which -- in every way! -- satisfy wikipedia's guidelines for valid references.
Unless you can come up with better reasons than these, the references stay. Stone put to sky 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV, the article must also include opposing views. Some proposals can be found here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Suggestions and discussion would be welcome, here or on the talk page of that user page. Ultramarine 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All of the sources in this article either contain a statement that clearly uses the words "state terrorism" or directly reference such an article. Insofar as you wish to include any content, you may either use existing sources which mention "state terrorism" or you may supply your own. If, however, you are unable to manage either of these then the content is clearly inadmissible.
“ | The judgment in Nicaragua vs. United States never find the United States guilty of terrorism or state terrorism. That is Chomsky's personal interpretation. | ” |
The first and second paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. It simply is a justification of US support for dictatorships, and explanation of why democracy is better. In regards to the democracy section, I support these staments, but it is better to be in another article.
The third paragraph says: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation." It then states: "However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships." This is true, but this does not mean that the US has or has not committed terrorism. Terrorism is not the same as the number of civilians killed.
Third paragraph: "Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct." POV. The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism either, just more justification of US foreign policy.
The fourth paragraph has little to do with terrorism also. It is also factually incorrect. Many of the actions of the CIA at the Nicaragua v US case were state supported and sanctioned terrorism.
The fifth paragraph is a broad statment "The US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations" not, to my knowledge, supported by the reference. This is not an article about the positive aspects of the US governmment, there are several articles like this, which I am sure you have built. Instead it focuses on the terrorism conducted by the US.
The Cuba section disregards the non-Cuba sources. (See footnotes 36-68--32 footnotes for that section alone)
The Nicaragua section ignores that there were 16 finding of the court, and typcially, only focuses on one, the positive one. This one paragraph is not the complete finding of the court.
Further, which is ignored in this white wash article, the court found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" which is the very defintion of terrorism (look it up). Through out the judgement the judges mention terrorism, as do the witnesses.
The Guatemala section states: "The United States cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the long civil war." No one is.
The School of the Americas section ignores the long bloody history of school of America's graduates. If I recall, it also ignores how many of the students and facilty see the training as a joke. The Torture Manualss from the School of America are also ignored. Not surprising, because the source is the SOA itself.
My question is: How many deaths can the US be blamed for? In this fairytale view of history, it looks like the answer is "none".
I appreciate your efforts. Please avoid blanket statments and narrow your research to terrorism only, especially in the first paragraph. 69.152.139.102 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no double standard here, Ultramarine, except for the one you are trying to beg for yourself.
Once again, Ultramarine: all of the sources in the article have been provided to either back up statements that were made within an article that clearly references "state terrorism by the u.s.", or because they are articles which make a direct statement to that effect.
All sources provided by you must conform to these two stipulations to be admitted to the article. If they do not, then you may not post them to the article. Obviously, you must now simply do more work and more research to find some that conform to these stipulations -- which you have imposed upon the article -- because the content you are currently offering up here clearly does not meet those standards. Stone put to sky 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A move has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Now that the afd has closed with a recommendation to pursue other editorial venues, such a move back to the former consensus title can hopefully be discussed. The proposed title is a far better solution because it is not an point of view condemnation, would match the other title in the state terrorism series, Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, and would follow the NPOV titles for other contentious articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The United States has never been definitively condemned as having engaged in terrorist acts, and the least the article can do is have the title reflect that. -- MichaelLinnear 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the United States has been -- repeatedly -- and the sources are here on this page to prove it.
I'm sorry, but there is no consensus here -- and never has been -- for a change to the name "Allegations of State Terrorism...." That is weasel-language, and i am unconcerned if Jewish people in the United States are outraged by the fact that people want to point out Israeli Apartheid and protest it by defacing wikipedia content; the fact is that there are many, many people in the world who use that phrase -- as well as "State Terrorism" -- and it deserves mention.
The only reason this page is so long and detailed is because of the protesters here; for my part, i would have been happy with a three- or four-paragraph treatment of the subject, but because of the artificial and exaggerated content standards forced upon the editors of this page, it has grown into what it is now.
Open up an Encyclopedia Britannica and you will not find "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", "Allegations of Holocaust", "Allegations of Fascist Atrocities", "Allegations of Apartheid", or "Allegations of Torture at Guantanamo Bay"; in each case there are many people who challenge these ideas. In each case, however, the ideas themselves are listed under a simple declarative heading.
This article should -- and will, per Wikipedia policy -- follow the same pattern. Stone put to sky 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, i can only say i respectfully disagree. State terrorism is a concept that has been rather clearly defined and is seeing increasing use in the international diplomatic, intelligence and legal communities; it's controversy is largely restricted to print and broadcast media and military circles, but even in the latter there's a lot more agreement than is widely acknowledged.
I don't think the name of this article would be an issue at all except that the people who want to see it deleted have made it one. Picking our battles? Everything on this page is a battle, even trivial, patently obvious statements like the opening sentence.
I wholeheartedly believe that changing the title will achieve nothing of value and its effects will work only counter-productively -- and not just for this page, but for all of wikipedia. The changes would only serve the interests of those people who want to see the page deleted and noone else. Leaving it as it is, however, will send a message to all prospective page vandals out to push a point-of-view on wikipedia, while helping to establish clear wikipedia policy on the introduction of weasel-words.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless of the outcome, it's been a pleasure. Stone put to sky 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The same standards used in other article must be used here. Wikipedia is often over-cautious with the US, let's void double standards.-- BMF81 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ultramarine claims that he has improved the text, but so far as i can tell any changes are merely cosmetic and have done nothing to address the objections listed above. Stone put to sky 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not a double standard; this has already been explained to you repeatedly, but i will assume good faith and do so again:
The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.
Further, you are ignoring the many complaints that much of what you have posted on that page is Original Research, unsourced personal opinions, or plain violations of the neutral point of view that wikipedia demands.
Thus, the consensus here is that the sandbox material does not meet the standards that you yourself have set for this page, and unless you can correct these flaws it cannot be added. Stone put to sky 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again:
The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.
All of the material i just added does conform to this standard.
That's all there is to it. These are the standards that you yourself have laid down for the page. Please, do the honorable thing and adhere to your own standards. We will not allow you to create a double standard for this page.
I have deleted your "Opposing" section per the recommendations of the other contributing editors here. Please understand that any more mass deletions of material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I shall take your inactivity in that matter as evidence that i have done an excellent job, managing to satisfy both your own high content standards as well as managing to properly exposit the intended subject.
Now, regarding your claims about the content standards on this page: you are plainly wrong.
All of the sources used in the sub-sections dealing with evidence against and condemnations of the U.S. are each clearly built around documents which first predicate the crime of state terrorism by the united states, and then supplemented by sources which outline the events and crimes outlined in those fundamental documents.
Either your sources must directly address those fundamental documents or they must themselves use the phrase "State terrorism" predicated to the United States. If your material and sources do not meet either of these criteria then they cannot be included on the page.
In addition, all contrasting views must be presented under the proper sub-heading. There is no place here for an "Opposing Views" section, because we are describing real-world events, not theories.
I suggest that you try harder to conform to these standards, and am in fact a little shocked at your protests. These are standards of your own creation; for you to claim that they do not hold is, frankly, ridiculous. Your presence on this page for the last two years has guaranteed adherence to them.
These are the rules which you yourself have established.
You plainly have no right to try and change them now. Stone put to sky 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur with MichaelLinnear and Morton devonshire that this is the most appropriate title for this article, especially since that is what the ICJ found the U.S. government to be guilty of in the case of Nicaragua vs United States. Even so, Nicaragua later dropped their suit and claim to reparations that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. was supposed to pay the government of Nicaragua.-- MONGO 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll get a poll started here:
The title "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" is too weak. Most countries of the world have violated international law in one way or another. So, it doesn't carry much information. In fact the word "allegation" in the title would actually suggest that the US actually performed better than most other countries when it comes to upholding international law. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This not an article about "breaches of international law by the united states". However, if you all think that such an article is useful then feel free to create it. This article is about state terrorism by the united states -- the concept, who makes these charges, and what evidence there might be to support such an idea.
Please stop trying to play these name-change games, fellows. There is no consensus for such a change, and there will not be one. You are all currently quite guilty of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Please understand that any attempt to change the title without first reaching a consensus will be considered page vandalism, and acted upon accordingly. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
When the article was first moved from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of..." there was clearly no established consensus, vocal opposition to it, and much protest at the time it happened. Moving it back, therefore, was merely a restoration of the title after vandals had moved it against the wishes of the community. Stone put to sky 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
poll?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Personally I will be less than impressed by a fairly high vote title for the move to "breaches of international law by the united states." This proposal has, of course, been listed at Morton's Illuminati Noticeboard and will therefore receive votes from all of the usual suspects (many have already weighed in) who usually vote identically on "conspiracy theory" matters (though how this article has anything to do with conspiracy theories eludes me). It's obviously fine for that crew to weigh in here, but I think we should think of this "poll" (I'd much prefer a discussion) as an attempt to reach some consensus on the title (which may be impossible) rather than a straight winner-take-all vote. The proposed move is extremely, extremely radical, and I feel there should be fairly broad agreement about it in order for it to happen, not one well organized group of like-minded editors voting in lock step and thus bringing about a page move (I'm just calling it like I see it).-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I really support this article, but I suggest the excellent written first section of Guatemala be moved to the 1950s overthrow article, since it has nothing to do with terrorism per se.
The Philippine section is also interesting, but it is so large, maybe it deserves a seperate new article. Military aid to the Philippines is not terrorism, unless it is used for terrorist purposes. 69.152.139.102 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with including any of this stuff in distinct articles. The page is getting huge. I have always said that i thought a better treatment for this page would be to avoid getting bogged down in the details of the evidence and instead discuss the foundation of the condemnations of U.S. policy and why people think that qualifies as terrorism. The deletionists here have always rejected that approach out of hand.
Now they've got the page they insisted upon, and they want to delete that, too. Anyone surprised?
The first part of the Guatemala section is, IMO, relevant; it establishes that from the very beginning of U.S. involvement in the coup, assassinations, violence, and illegal, subversive action were common tools. All of that has bearing on what followed over the course of the next forty years, has in its own right been called state-sponsored terrorism, and falls within the scope of the definitions laid out at the top of this page. Stone put to sky 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. also gives to the U.N. Should we explore the "terrorism" by troops under the U.N. banner? It seems to fit the criteria that is used to include these other sections. --
Tbeatty
07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I really can't see any consensus here for the move. This is an awful title. -- John 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Moved to "State-sponsored terrorism by the United States" until we can get this State terrorism.... bug worked out. Stone put to sky 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this even more POV move which is not supported by the evidence...unless of course by evidence we are using some really extreme opinions to justify this title. I hope you guys keep adding extremism to this article...it will make it easier to demostrate it for what it is...a soapbox. Have fun! Why not just retitle it to The U.S of A., the evil empire...seriously.-- MONGO 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The closing admin listed renaming to resolve the conflict. The majority of comments on the AfD were to move it. That is consensus. The only thing left was to determine the new name. Keeping the same name, however, is NOT consensus. -- Tbeatty 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The current title is absolutely unacceptable. It now says that the US is guilty of terrorism which is sponsored by another state. That can't be right. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to call attention to this bit of fluff that MONGO felt the urge to delete from the page, and ask if it is standard wikipedia policy to delete such things on behalf of the community or if MONGO was merely acting on some sort of personal decision. Beguiled recently posted:
“ | Would someone please tell stone put to stupid to say NO to drugs? I've been watching this fiasco unfold here over the past day and I have never seen a more ridiculously stupid pile of crap of an article. Next time your third world shithole of a country gets taken over by someone like Saddam or that nutjob running Iran, you know, the moron who says the Holocaust is a lie, and we'll just let you people rot. We never should have shoul;d have invaded Iraq because, well, why should we care if the Kurds are gassed and the guy breaks every single UN backed resolution that is passed on him. Liberals never what to go to war unless the tanks are coming down their own driveways.-- Beguiled 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | ” |
I am under no illusions that MONGO was acting on my behalf, and in any event the insults don't really bother me. I am curious, however, why he deleted them (as he did above, with Ultramarine's quid pro quo offer regarding the deletion of material); i would think that it would be better to allow them to stand.
Stone put to sky 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Offended? Of course i'm offended. But they don't bother me, because I have come to expect such things from some of the editors on this page.
I'm sure you know the sorts i'm talking aobut, MONGO. Stone put to sky 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy is No Personal Attacks and Beguiled has been warned for it. Even if you aren't bothered about it, to conform to policy it would be preferable to remove the quote above. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 11:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the point has been made; if EVERY editor here -- contributing and deletionist alike -- is willing to allow that first sentence to stand as-is, then i think we can reduce the number of sources on it to a more reasonable number.
I want to get that agreement in writing, on my talk page: a clear promise from Morton Devonshire, Tom Harrison, MONGO, Ultramarine, Merzbow, and TDC -- in particular, no compromises -- that they will not attempt to delete the sentence nor will they attempt to alter it in any way without first achieving full community consensus.
Similarly, i expect them to promise to revert attempts by anyone else to change it.
If they are willing to abide by such a small restriction and act in accordance with their promise, then i'm perfectly happy to reduce the number of sources on it. Otherwise, i think they should stay. Stone put to sky 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, AA. Obviously, that agreement won't be coming, so this method is clearly a better compromise.
RE: MONGO's comment on number of sources: This is a trivial declarative statement describing what a commonly known fact. It was not i who demanded sources on this, but rather other deletionists present on this page. All we have done is back up the statement with incontrovertible evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators, experts, and organizations who do predicate "state terrorism" to the United States; we found this necessary because some of the deletionists on this page -- and please correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you one of them? -- repeatedly tried to change that first statement to a very misleading "Noam Chomsky claims...." Stone put to sky 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of multiple citations for a single comment and have argued against them on other topics but in this case I have to support them as some editors who want to reduce their number are also ironically using the arguement that there are an insuffient number of citations when opposing the same edits and also in support of RfD's. Until the page is stable and not under threat of frivolous RfD requests they should, unfortunately, stay. Wayne 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As i've said before: the deletionists here have been adamant about rejecting any proposals that have not originated with them, first. What i find amazing, however, is that despite their vehement insistence upon doing things their way and only their way, to date they still are dissatisfied with the content on this page.
The simple and plain fact is that it is they who are most responsible for limiting and directing the development of content on this page. They simply cannot come to grips with the idea that, regardless of what they try, there will remain a page on Wikipedia that presents these facts under the rubrik of State Terrorism, and predicated to the United States.
I have always understood their objections, and contrary to how they would like to portray me have offered up several compromises over the years. All have been rejected out of hand, without discussion.
My suggestion now is a rather radical one; i support a name change, and i have come up with a suitably NPOV name change that should satisfy everyone here.
It will, however, take the page in a radical new direction, and will demand a lot of work on the part of all parties. The deletionists themselves will find, however, that should they accept my proposition they will have a free hand to introduce the sources (properly referenced and of course conforming to the standards they have laid down) and content (so long as it is relevant) they prefer.
My proposal is to change the name to State terrorism and the United States.
This page would then become a summary of other pages on wikipedia where more content could be found regarding the cases in question. We could move the Guatemala, Philippines, and Nicaragua sections to other pages and provide brief (2-5 sentence) summaries of the content there. Similarly, the deletionists would have a free hand to develop pages regarding the charges which the United States' levels against other nations.
In short, we could have the "State terrorism by Cuba", "State terrorism by Syria", "State terrorism by the United States" and all other such pages all clearly referenced and tied back to this single page, which (hopefully) would not become the monstrosity it currently is.
Of course, we would need an introductory section, as well as describing the definitions used by the United States; similarly, any charges or allegations made against the United States could be linked back here, but then that would be the same sort of arrangement as we would get by changing the name to "Allegations..." anyway.
I hope this idea interests some of you, and if it is provocative enough to spark a new direction for this impasse then i look forward to the discussion. Stone put to sky 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine that there aren't that many other countries who accuse Cuba of terrorism. I may be wrong, but my guess is that most such charges come from the United States.
Regardless, any such charges would hopefully be referenced on a "State Terrorism and Cuba" page, or something like it.
And of course, because this is a wiki we could work out the kinks as we go along. Stone put to sky 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's appropriate for this article. Also, I note that the references refer to cultural imperialism and not cultural terrorism. Cultural terrorism seems to be a completely invented term that waters down the meaning of the word terrorism. Benhocking 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
State terrorism is offered up in at least one of the articles, but only as a contrasting term to "cultural terrorism", which is clearly not subsumed under it.
I hope that Tom isn't making an issue of this; i had presumed that he was above such silliness. Stone put to sky 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No search phrase, Ben; Tom's mocking me, because i often told Ultramarine to go back up to the top of the page and look at the first three or four explanations he'd been given, rather than reminding him a fifth or sixth time.
Tom,though, hasn't given any explanation yet -- nothing coherent -- so it's just more big-top shuffle.
Agree completely, Six. Unfortunately, Tom here isn't serious. He's just showing off his impersonation skills.
So, Tom: we see you can write nonsense. You've already shown us that more than a few times, now.
Nobody here holds James Petras to be a great scholar; a trivial statement was asked to be backed up, and so a trivial source has been provided. If you don't like it, then it would probably be best to stop acting in a trivial way; i'd suggest first taking off the clown suit and moving away from the bear-in-a-tutu.
I suggest we just delete the content as off-topic and be done with it. If they want to start an edit war, then please ask Bigtimepeace up there to get his sys-op gun working and freeze the page. Stone put to sky 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So, Tom, you want to put that lower lip out a little farther and drop some tears for us, too? Ultramarine's been harping on this point forever, and i thought i'd already explained it about as clearly as one could. But then, my guess those'd be crocodile tears, wouldn't they?
Really, though -- i'm glad you've pulled off the clown suit and started talking like the rational, cool, relentless Tom Harrison we've all come to know and love. Now if we could just get you to turn out the dancing bear...if you're going to make it wear a tutu you could at least give it a wash every now and then.
There is no synthesis in the article. "The upshot" is this: all of the subheadings in the article are clearly cited directly to at least a single, authoritative source plainly condemning the events as "state terrorism" (sometimes several, as in the Philippines section) and any supporting evidence that is relevant to these statements is included to explain and support. Referred sources for evidence and claims are all highly reliable and easily qualified per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV -- mostly government, popular media, and social-science experts working in an acknowledged field of expertise -- so your mocking tone towards the article's content really has no justification (unless -- as seems the case -- you are really mocking the violence itself, which is just sad).
Benhocking, i think it's obvious the barbs were directed at me, but again i really don't care. If the best Tom Harrison can do is mimic other editors and parrot Ultramarine then i don't think any of the contributing editors here has much to worry about. Stone put to sky 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Under our policy on biographies of living people I have removed the material on Palparan, which was both wildly slanted and not consistent with the sources cited. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly caution people not to restore material removed under wp:blp. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What I have so far:
General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses. [6] [7] These allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This view has however been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [8] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired." [9]
The AHRC however is requesting a greater look into the rise of political killings, citing: "[w]hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan." [10] Palparan has been noted in his comments on the killings:
“ The killings are being attributed to me but I did not kill them. I just inspire the triggermen...Their disappearance is good for us but as to who abducted them, we don’t know....I encourage people victimized by communist rebels to get even. [11] ”
Looking for Arroyo support still. Found an article but forgot the link where she states in a speech he should not be held responsible for individual soldiers or something to that effect. Just to add while I am willing to work here to improve the NPOV. I will not be looking for consensus to restore what was removed without a consensus, especially since it seems the majority believe it was not a BLP violation in the first place. Consider this an olive branch of good faith. -- SixOfDiamonds 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses. [12] [13] However, these allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This refutation has itself been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [14] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired." [15]
[Say who] has accused General Jovito Palparan of human rights abuses.[cite1][cite2] Eligio Mallari of the Asian Human Rights Commission says this is not the case: "[there was] no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." Quintin Quito III and Dominador Calamba II say [quote them, or briefly summarize]. General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has said "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired."[cite3]
This "article" is a disgrace It is also symbolic of the massive failures of Wikipedia and why it can never be taken seriously as a source. The conceit of the article is that the "unlawful use of force", per the ICJ, constitutes terrorism. Essentially the article admits the entire project is the creative inspiration of Noam Chomsky and proceeds to original research observations based on that fact.
Here's the thing: Chomsky was lying (big surprise). The "unlawful use of force" is not code for anything and is quite straightforward as a legal conception and as a phrase; Chomsky, being a linguist, knows better, but also being a propagandist knows the importance of emotive words being turned on the accuser (the US being a prime diviner of what constitutes terrorism).
The vast majority of these "allegations" are made tenuously linked to the subject at best, consisting mostly of a litany of subjects for criticisms of US foreign policy throughout the Cold War. The coups in Iran and Guatemala have nothing to do with terrorism, and other sections hinge on specious claims by far left organizations like the Italian communists and a left-wing Filipino [show trial] to make claims about "terrorism". If you want a laundry list of links for every communist or far leftist that has "accused" or made "allegations" about "state terrorism" "by the United States", you can compile such a list. But it is not a subject remotely fit for an encyclopedia.
I might console myself in believing this is merely a joke, but if it were it is in quite poor taste. -- 72.84.56.55 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See User:Ultramarine/Sandbox for earlier proposals. Here are more. Please explain the deletions.
Critics respond that "outside the Chomsky cult, of course, unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the ICJ has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the US did not since the " Soviet Bloc police states" were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court. [16]
Keith Windschuttle notes that Chomsky has stated that "the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial" for war crimes. "Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented." [17]
Windschuttle also notes that Chomsky has revealed he is no pacifist.
I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.
Windschuttle writes that in 2001, the average GDP per head in the Philippines was $4000. At the same time, twenty-five years of revolution in Vietnam had produced a figure of only half as much, a mere $2100. [18]
In The End of Faith (p. 146), Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):
Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.
Ultramarine 11:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, apart from the word "cult," which does not sound NPOV to me the argument presented is flawed and therefore should not be included. It is irrelevant how many regimes are ignored. Example: I drive 3000 mph through the city. A police officer (Chomsky) stops me and says I am speeding. My response is that he ignores all those other people that violate the law. Of course he immediately sees his error and lets me go. The logical fallacy here is that even if I can produce a million people this officer has not stopped, it does not negate the fact that I was violating the speed limit. So, although Chomsky may have ignored other violators that simple fact does not negate the allegations he makes against the US. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This article prominently discusses Chomsky's claims regarding what state terrorism is. Criticisms of these claims should be included, as should the opposing views regarding the ICJ. Ultramarine 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(indent) This is going in circles and getting everyone nowhere. You believe it is proper to counter the POV of a definition with criticism of who said it. The other side, one that I am on, believes you counter perceived POV of the definition with criticism of the definition. It is basically "ad hominem" attack, critiquing Chomsky instead of his definition. -- SixOfDiamonds 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
To the warring parties, how about we cooperate in creating State terror series on Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other non controversial but writable articles (I am not being fictitious here) ? Taprobanus 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean something like this for an article called "State terrorism by Cuba"?
Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba's Law 93 against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban government had not undertaken any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora or taken action against any designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN, and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January.
The Cuban government continued to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. The United States periodically requested that the government return wanted fugitives1, and Cuba continued to be non-responsive. The Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The five were variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities, but the Cuban government continued to refer to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. One was accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force's shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated, however, that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.2
Although Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, the government demanded that the United States surrender Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accused of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remained in U.S. custody. Cuba also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases.
This edit summary lets Giovanni33 portray himself in a favorable light, but it is inaccurate: "rv to last by Tom Harrision?" That is an impressive level of indentation above though. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no sources for that operation Ajax involved terrorist groups. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no page number. Objections to removal, and if so, why? Ultramarine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Still no verifiable sources for that the US funded and trained death squads. Objections to removal and if so why. Ultramarine 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay here's what I've come up with, digging up some old sources. I would see this replacing the second paragraph of the Guatemala section (and I would make a better transition from the first paragraph, which also mentions the coup). Also some of the material described above (sourced by the 32 documents) could be deleted. Let me know what you think, but I think this is exactly the kind of thing we should be looking for in this article (if there's any formatting errors or type-o's we can obviously fix that).-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See no obvious problems, except that most relate to the an early period when the civil war was less intense. Regardles, the opposing views in User:Ultramarine/Sandbox should also be included. Ultramarine 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) See no mention of death squads. Ultramarine 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I added in the new stuff I originally posted here. I also deleted the stuff cited from the 32 primary documents which Ultramarine originally wanted removed, and also removed some language about "death squads" (I'll have to look back and see if there is more). I think what we have now is better, providing better sources while still making some of the same arguments that were present before but were not sourced. I think the whole thing could be edited a bit for clarity, probably proceeding chronologically is a good bet. Let me know what you think though.
Also to Ultramarine, there is a paragraph (it begins "In 1995 CIA aid was stopped") which uses your document. I'm not sure if you added that in or someone else, but it seems to discuss the basic points you wanted to make, although not talking about the effort to prevent an undemocratic coup. Perhaps you can just make some changes/additions to that paragraph?-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1. We should clearly state when the civil war started as well. The source [35] does say that military aid resumed in 1985, if you want to dispute this, add a source. Obviously the US cannot be responsible for deaths when there is no support.
2. Again, that is like stating we should have a graphic description of rapes by Italian soldier, for example, since they are in NATO.
3. Will do.
4. OR synthesis, that the army in Guatemala committed many crimes under a 36 year long civil war, and some members of the force probably were in death squads, does not mean that the US is responsible for all those crimes by giving aid during some of these years. You have to provide a source linking US to such crimes, not insinuating that the US is responsible for "200,000 deaths", "the army routinely engaged in torture and rape", and "genocide". Ultramarine 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You doubt that aid was discontinued, you provide the source. Your personal opinions regarding US training (presumably every single soldier in Guatemala since the US can be blamed for any rape and thus anyone picked out) is unsourced. If you had a source linking the US to a rape, then it would still not be appropriate with graphic details. Again, your personal opinion that the US was responsible for a large share of all the crimes is not interesting, give a source or remove it. Militaries are perfectly capable to be brutal without US teaching. Ultramarine 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"The ICJ refused to render judgment on the imputability of any direct acts by the Contras to the United States because of lacking evidence; the court did, however, make clear that the United States could be held liable for any acts it undertook relative to the state of Nicaragua and that this might include acts by the Contras. In their judgment, the ICJ found the United States liable for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras; for the mining of harbors, flyovers, and military attacks; for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law"; and held the United States liable for reparations and immediate cessation of all such proscribed activity."
This is incorreact. Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, from the voted on sentences "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America". [19]
They also stated, referring to this, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them." [19]
Exact quotes please from the judgement regarding the the US was liable for acts by the Contras, or for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras, or for for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law". Ultramarine 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Point 2:
Point 3:
Point 4:
Point 5:
Point 6:
Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;
Point 8:
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect; [36]
You are focusing on one point of 16 Ultramarine, ignoring the other 15 points that, to my knowledge, make the US look bad: that the US broke international law. 216.60.70.61 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The graphic rape and torture scenes are inflammatory and only intended to evoke an emotinal response. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for these acts. Since objections has been raised that "Soviet Bloc police states" is POV language, then these long paragraphs should definitely be removed. Ultramarine 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The holocaust article manages without this because it is required reading of anyone in the west who manages to graduate from University, because it has entire museums on at least three different continents devoted to nothing but those graphic descriptions, because it has multiple tv and feature films devoted to reconstructing precisely such graphic descriptions, because it has entire holidays devoted to reminding people of those graphic descriptions, and because any time Israel wants to kill more Arabs local jewish leaders start dropping crocodile tears and reminding everyone of the holocaust by reciting graphic descriptions.
Point me to even a museum that reminds people about the multiple genocides and massacres committed by the Guatemalan military -- using U.S. money and U.S. weaponry and U.S. logistical support -- and i'll be happy to cut the description from the article. Otherwise, the material is justifiably included.
Why are we including allegations when the title does not mention this? Like from Cuba's government and state censored press. Ultramarine 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's obvious that you feel stepped on your toes, Ultramarine. Maybe you should back off a bit and focus on something else, because (although I don't really care about the location of this article) this is a perfect example of "no concensus" for a move. No hard feelings, #29 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did we reach consensus to change the title from 'Allegation of state terrorism by the United States' to 'State terrorism by the United States'? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So is it 'no removals without consensus' or 'no additions without consensus'? Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)