![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else want to give an opinion? Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to solicit accusations of American terrorism on the presumption that it has occured. I've removed the sections on Nicaragua and Chile. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a clarification of the word "many" in the sentence "However, many researchers have commented that the true aim was often to increase the power and control of the United States over Europe." Is there a list somewhere of these "many" researchers? Otherwise I can only assume the statement is speculative. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow...the evidence in this article is very compelling! No doubt the U.S. has a history of terrorism that exceeds all other entities. The use of quality references is also impressive...I can see absolutely no efforts to "dig" for info here...this stuff is very mainstream and there is isn't any potential radical subversion apparent.-- MONGO 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
The United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate the Cuban head of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, proposed the assassination of Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro [1].
In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passangers. The US claimed the act it to be an error. However, following the incident, the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons and the air-warfare co-ordinator won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident [2]. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $63m componsation.
Interesting paragraphs, but it isn't terrorism per se, when in the first case it is an assassination attempt, and in the second case, the US claimed that it was an accident. Travb ( talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the cited references for this section do not mention terrorism. -- JWSchmidt 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
After this AfD, i am going to merge this article with American terrorism, I think that is the general consesus. Travb ( talk) 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If the AfD is to keep I'd recommend keeping it as-is as the name. Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay. It's really nothing to do (as said above) with POV pushing or anything silly like that. From my comment just now on AfD: "Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this."
Simply put, each of the articles has merit as they exist now, and I'll politely remind everyone we are not here to support a pro-Syria, pro-Libya, or pro-United States viewpoint--anyone here for that is here for the very wrong reasons. We're here to build a factually accurate encyclopedia based on WP:V and WP:RS, and the others. Whether the source of the RS is not to one's taste is utterly irrelevant and not for consideration--does it meet RS by the written policy? If so, it counts. rootology ( T) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment 1 RE User:Seabhcan: The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes.
As per: Talk:Howard_Zinn#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue, which you can read in full to get the full quote, Ward Churchill states:
Do you fit into this camp User:Seabhcan? This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.” Please read the full quote of Churchill. American history is replete with examples of Americans simply not giving a fuck about who the American government tortures, kills, or imprisons. I can give you a long list of horrors perptrated by the US government and the US population just doesn't care, in fact, they often reelect these leaders in land slide victories.
American empire can also fit into this definition of a "racial slur" but through a lot of hard work and comprimise from me and other editors, we have defined the term in such a way that it becomes an encyclopedic article, and not a "racial slur". Both American terrorism and State terrorism by United States of America are simply not up to this level yet, and they have a long way to go. (Granted, there is a lot I really dislike about American empire, including the use of the "imperialism".)
Ironically, this AfD was a good catalyst for change, but both articles still need a hell of a lot of work, including decent, knowlegable conservative editors (none of those who have voted for the AfD seem to be rising to the challenge). The person who voted to destroy this article has actually made it stronger. I get a good sense of pleasure in this delicious irony.
Again, we have two sets of article which can be merged into one. Thus far the votes for merge outweigh the votes for not merging.
I have worked on a hell of a lot of really controversial wikisites. There are a lot of things that we liberals and left leaning folks can do to insure that this article never goes through another AfD again. My experience with the Template:AmericanEmpire series has taught me a lot. I will throw some of these ideas out after the AfD. I will even invite the most intellegent conservative I know on wikipedia, and the most dangerous foe I have ever gotten in an edit war with, to come and give his two cents to this article. This is because I believe that the strongest articles on wikipedia have all sides represnted, not just one side. I look forward to working with you all, and working with real wikipedian editors, conservatives included who do not use pre-teen vandal tactics. MONDO is a smart conservative who may be able to contribute something to this article. Travb ( talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment 2 RE User:Rootology: Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay.
Actually, I see no precedent at all. Look at: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state or Category:State_terrorism. There seems to be no consesus at all. I simply don't care which article is merged into which. I just think they should be merged. We can talk about moving this article to a less POV and less likely to be deleted article name later. For now I think the articles should just be merged. Travb ( talk) 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
<ref>[http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=2277 defdefensa.org: Secret Warfare: From Gladio to 9/11]</ref>
Signed: Travb ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In this diff [4] you use the edit summary, "Revert vandalism of morty". He removed information he regards as unsourced. He has at least an arguable case. Do you not agree that his edit was a good-faith effort to improve the page? I also wonder at your rationale for restoring to the article material sourced to babaklayeghi.blogspot.com. Tom Harrison Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote on the AfD:
Here is Tom's response:
Tom stated this: "He removed information he regards as unsourced." but in the AfD he lists himself, 12 sources which Morty deleted. Travb ( talk) 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Rajiva, Lila (2005).
"The Pentagon's 'NATO Option'". The Minority Report. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I removed this blog as per suggestion from Tom. Signed: Travb ( talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following passage from this article:
“ | One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up. [3] | ” |
My reason for removal: It misinterprets what Fisk actually wrote. His story is titled "Through a Syrian Lens" and reports that there are Syrians who believe in a "fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties." Moreover, Fisk is careful to specify that he himself has doubts about the truth of allegations such as the story quoted above of the Iraqi man whose car allegedly blew up. He writes: "Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable."
Fisk is giving an account of stories that were told to him by an unnamed "security source" in Syria, and by Fisk's own account he has not attempted to verify the accuracy of those stories. For example, Fisk doesn't say that he actually spoke with the Iraqi soldier whose story is quoted above. Fisk's reporting tells us something about the type of rumors flying in Iraq and Syria, but it shouldn't be presented here as though these allegations are actually proven. -- Sheldon Rampton 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Frisk story above.
The reason I re-removed the above, is just as Sheldon Rampton stated, is that Frisk interviewed one man: "a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source"" and reported his stories. These are third hand stories at best: an Iraqi tells this security source, and then this security source tells Frisk. This is rumors and gossip. Not terribly convincing.
I also removed this, from the "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" :
"The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" is Frisk's opinion, and pure conjecture: "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."
There are plenty of excellent examples of American terrorism. We have only grazed the surface. These two articles only weaken this article as a whole. Currently in this article we have reports from the NYT, the Moscow Times, the National Archives, and the International Court of Justice, next to Frisk's third hand accounts of something that might have happened, and pure speculation and conjecture.
I agree with Frisk on most things, but these two articles are not really very factually strong, and should be kept out of the article. Better to place them on the Frisk page. Travb ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing 90% of an article in one fell swoop without clearly detailing why isn't really appropriate... please explain why they should go. I rv'd it. rootology ( T) 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless we are going to say 'who thinks', there is no reason to have 'are thought to have...' in an encyclopedia. We might as well say, "It is whispered in the market place..." Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are the sources to back it up, just say "agents of Gladio were resposnible for the Bologna massacre." If there are not, then don't say it. "It is thought that" has no place here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A small minority of wikiusers take away more than they contribute to wikipedia. Based on looking at all of some of the users edits yesterday (clear back to when he registered), unfortunatly some wikipedians, in regards to political articles, is definatly one of those wikipedians who destroys much more than he ever creates.
In addition, i have noticed that some wikipedians rarely if ever discusses his deletions on the discussion board.
A handful of wikipedians I want to sit down and force them into a course explain what wikipedia's core goals are. Some wikipedians tops the short list.
I wonder if some wikipedians realize that 99% of his edits are pointless and a waste of time, because they are simply reverted.
Deleting large portions of text which don't fit your POV is pathetically easy. Pre-teenage vandals do this all the time.
Backing up your POV with well referenced, excellent sources, such as we now have here: the US Dept of State Official Website, The National Security Archive, the International Criminal Court, the European Parliament, American Journal of International Law, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Moscow Times, and the BBC News, among others, is much harder, and requires a level of sophistication, hard work, and research that unfortunatly a lot of wikipedians are simply not willing to exert.
It is much easier to delete in mass like a pre-teenage vandal, but it is much less effective, and truly pointless.
I welcome real conservative adults editing this wikipage, to help balance the apparent POV. Some of the best articles come about because rational comprimises between liberals and conservatives, for example No Gun Ri. I am troubled that not a single one of the people who have voted to delete have, to my knowledge, added one sentence to this article. Instead, they have only removed material.
Some of these users use the same old tired excuses and arguments to mask their own POV, removing material with lame tactics instead of helping to build wikipedia. Shielding your POV in wikipedia policy and deletions is easy, promoting your POV while contributing to wikipedia is much more work and effort, which none of these people seem to want to do.
Unfortunatly, some wikipedian's behavior here is a poster child for all of this behavior. Travb ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
AfD five days ends in < 10 minutes for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Thanks for virtually everyone being/trying to be civil. rootology ( T) 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that the AfD is over, I merged the article American terrorism as per the discussion above. Now we have everything in one place, and can now work on building this article better. Travb ( talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following, since it is already in the article:
signed: Travb ( talk) 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison ( talk • contribs).
Hey Tom, I about erased this, mistakenly thinking it is as a link farm. Any reason to include these links?
Travb (
talk)
04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I like rootology's idea of calling this article " Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", and I think this naming should be applied to all countries. Why? Because who _proves_ such a thing? Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? If not, then we never had anything proven. Further, it's clear that getting people to agree on a definition of state terrorism is problematic. That's why I think this series of articles, if they concentrate on noteworthy, well-sourced allegations, will be much easier to develop in an NPOV manner. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Any clear nay's to my doing this right now? rootology ( T) 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We could call it American terrorism (term); We could call it United States - evil empire of hypocrisy and badness plus they owned slaves. Maybe Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would work. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym.
I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article. Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb ( talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"? Any other page only has "United States" as its title, not "United States of America". Iola k ana| T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. See here
[7] for the policy in question. When the article states: "The following incidents have been described in notable sources as acts of State terrorism by the United States of America", and then lists those allegations, that's an example of this kind of original research violative of the policy. Please remove this material.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
Ther problem with the iran vs. US dispute is quite sinmply that terrorism is a lousy word. It is used by people and governments the world over the describe something they disagree with, with very little consistancy. Now, I feel the iran Vs. US section is certainly within the spirit of this article, since Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime, and there are accusations from elsewhere of a 'secret war'. Clearly, these actions fall under the Definition of terrorism.
As single action we cannot call this terrorism (as none of the references explicitly call it that), as that would be additional reasoning. However it does serve a vital part in the article, in my opinion. Either we need a new section, a new article, or a renamed article (' Missuse of US force and funding', off the top of my head, is a suggestion). LinaMishima 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate how everyone backs up every word of what you say on this page. But for the love of God don't add footnotes in the middle of a sentence. Only in rare, very rare cases should this be done. Add the footnotes at the end of the statment which is being quoted.
I am REALLY tired of having to fix these ref tags.
In addition the footnote should be after the punctation, not before. Thank you! 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS. See [20] You should remove those sources. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Giving the already absurd level of content fighting, I move that all deletions or additions to the article contested even once be justified by the "other side" here on the Talk page. If not, this is going to end up sooner rather than later at ArbCom. I think this would be fair--as TravB said above he's nuked whole chunks of the article and no one has put them back in yet, while wholesale uncommented likewise nuking by others keeps getting undone. The allegations were made, were documented, and were notable, so the article will remain: lets just get it to a NPOV middle ground. I'll remind everyon again that the only POV that matters is NPOV. Anyone's left or right wingism will be left at the door, and abusing based on either side will be met with eventual sanctions by the community. Just sayin'. rootology ( T) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Due to the many reverts, I think that all of us should abide by the rule that we don't delete any sentence or source without alerting others on the talk page when we do it, and explaining the reason why. This will (hopefully) avoid revert wars.
Even Morton was able to convince me that what he was trying to do was rational, by explaining what he was doing and why he was doing it. As shown here. Travb ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
This is:
Signed: Travb ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is alot of A+B=C type of logic in this article, some sections use references that dont even cite terrorism. Furthermore there is a connection being drawn between unlawful combat and terrorism, with only Chmsky's opinion to support them as the same thing. Claims like the US commited acts of terrorism need more then Chomsky's opinion to support them. Cases such as Yugoslavia do not even state terrorism nor are their any sources calling it that, the case was further dismissed. Please follow WP:OR and do not link statements, find sources that do the linking. Extraordinary conclusions need more then one source as well. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with unlawful combat being linked to terrorism is the only source being provided for them being the same thing is a person who is not a lawyer. While Chomsky is popular he does not even have a law degree to be offering a legal opinion on equality of terms. Further since such a claim is being used to link two lawsuits to acts of terrorism, the claim needs to be supported by more then a sole source. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think some users are confused about the purpose of this article. Wikipedia's role is not to 'prove' US terrorism one way or the other. It is to present a collection of cited facts, beliefs and opinions. If we could only present scientifically provable information then there would be no article on Christianity, for example. Chomsky may not be a lawyer, but his opinion carries a great deal of weight around the world and is thus notable. We don't have to prove a person's connection to something else. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If notable opinion and publications suggest there is such a connection, then it is notable and should be included. If we were to prove or disprove something, no matter how conclusively, it would be Original Research, and should be published elsewhere. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
? The difference is too subtle for me. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See here. I agree with this. When I asked Tom for the reasoning behind this, he said to see above I believe, but I saw no policy-based reason for this on the area mentioned. Can anyone cite any rule on Wikipedia that says in some cases we'll cite the name of the author, and in others the source itself (which is the New York Times in this case)? My gut tells me that the reasoning is to make the statement have less authority as read.
This reference is similar: "Clapp, Rodney (September 1 2002). "When Tulsa Burned A forgotten episode in American terrorism". Christianity Today." The current passage says, "Author Rodney Clapp has described". Why not Christianity Today? I do not see similar notation of author rather than source on other articles. rootology ( T) 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
I also question the part regarding the Baghdad bombings. This part is pure speculation on the part of some agents and the newspaper reporter. Reading the piece also trows much doubt whether anything really happened and by whom and to what effect.
Furthermore, the section dealing with Gladio starts out by saying that it was a NATO operation and the USSD denies any terrorism took place. So, it isn't a US operation and thus doesn't belong here but under another article dealing with NATO.-- Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In this case the ICJ found the united states guilty of the "unlawful use of force" The unlawful use of force means terrorism, that is part of the defintion. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I will look over this. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The United States supported terrorism in Hondorous. More later. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The following section should be removed in my opinion:
Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.-- Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Small revert war reguarding:
In 1962, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, endorsed Operation Northwoods, a plot to gather public support for military intervention in Cuba. The plot called for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the development of a "terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington", "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)", faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban -- Paraphelion 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)waters similar to a " Remember the Maine" incident. The plan does not make clear whether or not U.S. citizens or military were to be intentionally harmed or killed.
The last sentence was removed. I am not sure why. This paragraph needs to be referenced, if it is okay with everyone, if it has no references within 24 hours (21:39, 17 August 2006), it can be removed. I have added two fact tags. Travb ( talk) 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute as to whether to include Operation Northwoods under the Cuba section or the Within the US section of this article. US Terrorism was perpetrated against Cuba (Operation Mongoose = the Cuba Project) and is well documented (e.g. National Security Archive). So far I know, there is no evidence that Operation Northwoods terrorist acts proposed by the Joint Chiefs against targets in the US were carried out (thanks to the civilian leadership under JFK nixing the proposal). So the Within the US section should only have the acts proposed but not carried out in Northwoods. -- NYCJosh 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I also took out the other bit under Cuba here. Which definition of terrorism does this fit into? Who was terrorized? Who got killed or targeted?-- Kalsermar 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was deleted, after being added today: [23]
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. [5] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
Can the user who deleted this explain why? Or I will restore this edit. Travb ( talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see there is some proof that Bush is a terrorist... [25]-- MONGO 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link provided at the end of the sentence does not mention the Italian Senate, it only mentions the Left Democrat party.
Unless there is some confirmation that the Italian Senate acted on the report, it should be present as it currently is in the article, the delusions of a out of power party whose members took millions of dollars from the KGB to form their own clandestine armies, or is that fact too inconvient for this article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the edits the past day, I think it is important to bring in a third party mediator to avoid a full fledged edit war. I will hold off, see what happens in the next day.
There appears to be three parties too this argument:
The parties who seem most effective are the last two. Deletions by the first group are quickly reverted. Again, I am concerned that not one of these deletionists has added a single source to this text. Many users have added nothing to the article, except for minor word changes which better reflect their POV. For those deletionists who continue to delete large portions of text: you are on the wrong webpage. Wikipedia favors those who can source their POV, not those who delete large sections of text which do not meet their POV. I hope a mediator will calm the deletionists urge to delete, and not add anything to this article. Travb ( talk) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As per: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:
If we can all follow these suggested guidelines, we can avoid calling in a third party mediator and a revert war. Travb ( talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Posted it to Tom above, here for review. How is "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." not read to include deletions? The policy here makes no exclusion between the two. I.e., deleting sourced material needs to be justified. rootology ( T) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the weight of scholarly opinion, the aim of Truman and other key US decision makers in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Soviets, then correctly understood as emerging out of the war as the major rival to US power, the ability and willingness of the US to use nuclear weapons and their devastating effect on large human targets; Japan was already persuing peace talks that Summer and was days away from agreeing to surrender. Therefore, according to this view (most historians who have studied the issue), the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet most reasonable definitions (including the US legal definition) of terrorism, EXCEPT that there was a declared state of war between the US and Japan. My question therefore is the following: Should this state of war be considered irrelevant, since the acts in question had nothing to do with the prosecution of the war. The war only provided a cover for acts that were aimed at generating fear in a (then ally) emerging rival. Should Hiroshima and Naga be included as nuclear terrorism? -- NYCJosh 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This entire section was deleted earlier by other wikipedians, and I restored it, under the mistaken impression that the entire section I restored was part of the code. As a fig leaf and comprimise to my conservative wikipedians, I deleted this sentence. This sentence needs to be citied if it is to appear in the article. Thanks for catching this error on my part User:NYCJosh Travb ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to define exactly what should be in the article and what should not be in the article. "Terrorism" is a label that can apply to many actions.
Does terrorism in this article deal with:
Here is my first attempt at what terrorism is, from the deleted dictionary defintions I had put on this page before:
Terrorism: General Definition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
|
Legal Defintion, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster:
|
I personally like this defintion is best: The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.
So the following would be included :
The following would not be included :
Any alternatives?
Signed: Travb ( talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree what this article is going to cover? Can we agree that, staying true to its title, it will cover allegations of state terrorism? I hope we do and if so, that means that non implemented things, or opinions that are clearly not applicable, should go. As an example I deleted the Yugoslav court case. It might not have been pretty, or necessary, for the Clinton admin to go into Yugo, but it was a military operation, not terrorism. Note to that the "court" took no action. This article should not degenerate into a list of accusations and opinions from anti-americans against anything the US has ever done, planned or even thought to have planned.-- Kalsermar 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kalsemar, by your logic, the attacks against the WTC on 9/11 may also not be terrorism since it was a "military operation" by an international guerilla army trained in large part by the US in the 1980s in Afghanistan who were fighting, in their view, a defensive war against the US and its allies in the region.
Let's consider the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, like all members of NATO, including the US, are member states of the UN, and have signed the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. The UN Charter provides only two exceptions to its ban on member states attacking fellow member states (the very reason the UN was established after WWII was to prevent war): 1. UN Sec Council authorized action, 2. A threat of imminent armed attack. Neither condition was met in bombing Yugo. No UN Sec. Council Res. It was not even alleged thatt Yugo was about to attack any NATO country or threatening to do so. So it seems that the NATO bombing was illegal. Was it a war? Did any NATO countries declare war? No. So if it's an illegal attack that includes the deliberate targeting of civilian targets (Belgrade bridges, radio stations, electricity plants etc.) why isn't it terrorism? Did I become "anti-American" by thinking these thoughts? -- NYCJosh 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned as a 'renegade' act? It was part of Operation Whella Wallawa, not some isolated accident. Green01 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection
There have been so many sections of this article deleted, I can't keep up. It is obvious that there are two groups here: a group who wants to build this page, and a group who wants to complete delete it, section by section, including the initiator of the AfD. I want to revert to an earlier version, before half the article was deleted, but this would destroy many valuable edits, and these sections will simply be deleted again. Travb ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This user is not much different from other deletionists with this page:
Total words deleted in this article by user: 1,963 words, number of words added: 3. Documented all here on this temporary page: User:Travb/Deletions#Deletions
Signed: Travb ( talk) 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
(archive)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else want to give an opinion? Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to solicit accusations of American terrorism on the presumption that it has occured. I've removed the sections on Nicaragua and Chile. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a clarification of the word "many" in the sentence "However, many researchers have commented that the true aim was often to increase the power and control of the United States over Europe." Is there a list somewhere of these "many" researchers? Otherwise I can only assume the statement is speculative. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow...the evidence in this article is very compelling! No doubt the U.S. has a history of terrorism that exceeds all other entities. The use of quality references is also impressive...I can see absolutely no efforts to "dig" for info here...this stuff is very mainstream and there is isn't any potential radical subversion apparent.-- MONGO 18:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
The United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate the Cuban head of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, proposed the assassination of Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro [1].
In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passangers. The US claimed the act it to be an error. However, following the incident, the men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons and the air-warfare co-ordinator won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement" noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident [2]. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $63m componsation.
Interesting paragraphs, but it isn't terrorism per se, when in the first case it is an assassination attempt, and in the second case, the US claimed that it was an accident. Travb ( talk) 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the cited references for this section do not mention terrorism. -- JWSchmidt 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
After this AfD, i am going to merge this article with American terrorism, I think that is the general consesus. Travb ( talk) 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If the AfD is to keep I'd recommend keeping it as-is as the name. Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay. It's really nothing to do (as said above) with POV pushing or anything silly like that. From my comment just now on AfD: "Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this."
Simply put, each of the articles has merit as they exist now, and I'll politely remind everyone we are not here to support a pro-Syria, pro-Libya, or pro-United States viewpoint--anyone here for that is here for the very wrong reasons. We're here to build a factually accurate encyclopedia based on WP:V and WP:RS, and the others. Whether the source of the RS is not to one's taste is utterly irrelevant and not for consideration--does it meet RS by the written policy? If so, it counts. rootology ( T) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment 1 RE User:Seabhcan: The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes.
As per: Talk:Howard_Zinn#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue, which you can read in full to get the full quote, Ward Churchill states:
Do you fit into this camp User:Seabhcan? This American terrorism caused by American foreign policy is somehow because of abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression.” Please read the full quote of Churchill. American history is replete with examples of Americans simply not giving a fuck about who the American government tortures, kills, or imprisons. I can give you a long list of horrors perptrated by the US government and the US population just doesn't care, in fact, they often reelect these leaders in land slide victories.
American empire can also fit into this definition of a "racial slur" but through a lot of hard work and comprimise from me and other editors, we have defined the term in such a way that it becomes an encyclopedic article, and not a "racial slur". Both American terrorism and State terrorism by United States of America are simply not up to this level yet, and they have a long way to go. (Granted, there is a lot I really dislike about American empire, including the use of the "imperialism".)
Ironically, this AfD was a good catalyst for change, but both articles still need a hell of a lot of work, including decent, knowlegable conservative editors (none of those who have voted for the AfD seem to be rising to the challenge). The person who voted to destroy this article has actually made it stronger. I get a good sense of pleasure in this delicious irony.
Again, we have two sets of article which can be merged into one. Thus far the votes for merge outweigh the votes for not merging.
I have worked on a hell of a lot of really controversial wikisites. There are a lot of things that we liberals and left leaning folks can do to insure that this article never goes through another AfD again. My experience with the Template:AmericanEmpire series has taught me a lot. I will throw some of these ideas out after the AfD. I will even invite the most intellegent conservative I know on wikipedia, and the most dangerous foe I have ever gotten in an edit war with, to come and give his two cents to this article. This is because I believe that the strongest articles on wikipedia have all sides represnted, not just one side. I look forward to working with you all, and working with real wikipedian editors, conservatives included who do not use pre-teen vandal tactics. MONDO is a smart conservative who may be able to contribute something to this article. Travb ( talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment 2 RE User:Rootology: Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay.
Actually, I see no precedent at all. Look at: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state or Category:State_terrorism. There seems to be no consesus at all. I simply don't care which article is merged into which. I just think they should be merged. We can talk about moving this article to a less POV and less likely to be deleted article name later. For now I think the articles should just be merged. Travb ( talk) 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
<ref>[http://www.dedefensa.org/article.php?art_id=2277 defdefensa.org: Secret Warfare: From Gladio to 9/11]</ref>
Signed: Travb ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In this diff [4] you use the edit summary, "Revert vandalism of morty". He removed information he regards as unsourced. He has at least an arguable case. Do you not agree that his edit was a good-faith effort to improve the page? I also wonder at your rationale for restoring to the article material sourced to babaklayeghi.blogspot.com. Tom Harrison Talk 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote on the AfD:
Here is Tom's response:
Tom stated this: "He removed information he regards as unsourced." but in the AfD he lists himself, 12 sources which Morty deleted. Travb ( talk) 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Rajiva, Lila (2005).
"The Pentagon's 'NATO Option'". The Minority Report. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
I removed this blog as per suggestion from Tom. Signed: Travb ( talk) 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the following passage from this article:
“ | One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up. [3] | ” |
My reason for removal: It misinterprets what Fisk actually wrote. His story is titled "Through a Syrian Lens" and reports that there are Syrians who believe in a "fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties." Moreover, Fisk is careful to specify that he himself has doubts about the truth of allegations such as the story quoted above of the Iraqi man whose car allegedly blew up. He writes: "Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable."
Fisk is giving an account of stories that were told to him by an unnamed "security source" in Syria, and by Fisk's own account he has not attempted to verify the accuracy of those stories. For example, Fisk doesn't say that he actually spoke with the Iraqi soldier whose story is quoted above. Fisk's reporting tells us something about the type of rumors flying in Iraq and Syria, but it shouldn't be presented here as though these allegations are actually proven. -- Sheldon Rampton 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Frisk story above.
The reason I re-removed the above, is just as Sheldon Rampton stated, is that Frisk interviewed one man: "a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source"" and reported his stories. These are third hand stories at best: an Iraqi tells this security source, and then this security source tells Frisk. This is rumors and gossip. Not terribly convincing.
I also removed this, from the "The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" :
"The shocking truth about the American occupation of Iraq" is Frisk's opinion, and pure conjecture: "just the tip of the mass grave" of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq."
There are plenty of excellent examples of American terrorism. We have only grazed the surface. These two articles only weaken this article as a whole. Currently in this article we have reports from the NYT, the Moscow Times, the National Archives, and the International Court of Justice, next to Frisk's third hand accounts of something that might have happened, and pure speculation and conjecture.
I agree with Frisk on most things, but these two articles are not really very factually strong, and should be kept out of the article. Better to place them on the Frisk page. Travb ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing 90% of an article in one fell swoop without clearly detailing why isn't really appropriate... please explain why they should go. I rv'd it. rootology ( T) 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless we are going to say 'who thinks', there is no reason to have 'are thought to have...' in an encyclopedia. We might as well say, "It is whispered in the market place..." Tom Harrison Talk 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are the sources to back it up, just say "agents of Gladio were resposnible for the Bologna massacre." If there are not, then don't say it. "It is thought that" has no place here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
A small minority of wikiusers take away more than they contribute to wikipedia. Based on looking at all of some of the users edits yesterday (clear back to when he registered), unfortunatly some wikipedians, in regards to political articles, is definatly one of those wikipedians who destroys much more than he ever creates.
In addition, i have noticed that some wikipedians rarely if ever discusses his deletions on the discussion board.
A handful of wikipedians I want to sit down and force them into a course explain what wikipedia's core goals are. Some wikipedians tops the short list.
I wonder if some wikipedians realize that 99% of his edits are pointless and a waste of time, because they are simply reverted.
Deleting large portions of text which don't fit your POV is pathetically easy. Pre-teenage vandals do this all the time.
Backing up your POV with well referenced, excellent sources, such as we now have here: the US Dept of State Official Website, The National Security Archive, the International Criminal Court, the European Parliament, American Journal of International Law, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Moscow Times, and the BBC News, among others, is much harder, and requires a level of sophistication, hard work, and research that unfortunatly a lot of wikipedians are simply not willing to exert.
It is much easier to delete in mass like a pre-teenage vandal, but it is much less effective, and truly pointless.
I welcome real conservative adults editing this wikipage, to help balance the apparent POV. Some of the best articles come about because rational comprimises between liberals and conservatives, for example No Gun Ri. I am troubled that not a single one of the people who have voted to delete have, to my knowledge, added one sentence to this article. Instead, they have only removed material.
Some of these users use the same old tired excuses and arguments to mask their own POV, removing material with lame tactics instead of helping to build wikipedia. Shielding your POV in wikipedia policy and deletions is easy, promoting your POV while contributing to wikipedia is much more work and effort, which none of these people seem to want to do.
Unfortunatly, some wikipedian's behavior here is a poster child for all of this behavior. Travb ( talk) 07:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
AfD five days ends in < 10 minutes for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Thanks for virtually everyone being/trying to be civil. rootology ( T) 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that the AfD is over, I merged the article American terrorism as per the discussion above. Now we have everything in one place, and can now work on building this article better. Travb ( talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following, since it is already in the article:
signed: Travb ( talk) 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison ( talk • contribs).
Hey Tom, I about erased this, mistakenly thinking it is as a link farm. Any reason to include these links?
Travb (
talk)
04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I like rootology's idea of calling this article " Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", and I think this naming should be applied to all countries. Why? Because who _proves_ such a thing? Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? If not, then we never had anything proven. Further, it's clear that getting people to agree on a definition of state terrorism is problematic. That's why I think this series of articles, if they concentrate on noteworthy, well-sourced allegations, will be much easier to develop in an NPOV manner. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Any clear nay's to my doing this right now? rootology ( T) 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We could call it American terrorism (term); We could call it United States - evil empire of hypocrisy and badness plus they owned slaves. Maybe Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would work. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym.
I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article. Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb ( talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"? Any other page only has "United States" as its title, not "United States of America". Iola k ana| T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder that "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. See here
[7] for the policy in question. When the article states: "The following incidents have been described in notable sources as acts of State terrorism by the United States of America", and then lists those allegations, that's an example of this kind of original research violative of the policy. Please remove this material.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
Ther problem with the iran vs. US dispute is quite sinmply that terrorism is a lousy word. It is used by people and governments the world over the describe something they disagree with, with very little consistancy. Now, I feel the iran Vs. US section is certainly within the spirit of this article, since Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime, and there are accusations from elsewhere of a 'secret war'. Clearly, these actions fall under the Definition of terrorism.
As single action we cannot call this terrorism (as none of the references explicitly call it that), as that would be additional reasoning. However it does serve a vital part in the article, in my opinion. Either we need a new section, a new article, or a renamed article (' Missuse of US force and funding', off the top of my head, is a suggestion). LinaMishima 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate how everyone backs up every word of what you say on this page. But for the love of God don't add footnotes in the middle of a sentence. Only in rare, very rare cases should this be done. Add the footnotes at the end of the statment which is being quoted.
I am REALLY tired of having to fix these ref tags.
In addition the footnote should be after the punctation, not before. Thank you! 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS. See [20] You should remove those sources. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Giving the already absurd level of content fighting, I move that all deletions or additions to the article contested even once be justified by the "other side" here on the Talk page. If not, this is going to end up sooner rather than later at ArbCom. I think this would be fair--as TravB said above he's nuked whole chunks of the article and no one has put them back in yet, while wholesale uncommented likewise nuking by others keeps getting undone. The allegations were made, were documented, and were notable, so the article will remain: lets just get it to a NPOV middle ground. I'll remind everyon again that the only POV that matters is NPOV. Anyone's left or right wingism will be left at the door, and abusing based on either side will be met with eventual sanctions by the community. Just sayin'. rootology ( T) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Due to the many reverts, I think that all of us should abide by the rule that we don't delete any sentence or source without alerting others on the talk page when we do it, and explaining the reason why. This will (hopefully) avoid revert wars.
Even Morton was able to convince me that what he was trying to do was rational, by explaining what he was doing and why he was doing it. As shown here. Travb ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
This is:
Signed: Travb ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
There is alot of A+B=C type of logic in this article, some sections use references that dont even cite terrorism. Furthermore there is a connection being drawn between unlawful combat and terrorism, with only Chmsky's opinion to support them as the same thing. Claims like the US commited acts of terrorism need more then Chomsky's opinion to support them. Cases such as Yugoslavia do not even state terrorism nor are their any sources calling it that, the case was further dismissed. Please follow WP:OR and do not link statements, find sources that do the linking. Extraordinary conclusions need more then one source as well. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with unlawful combat being linked to terrorism is the only source being provided for them being the same thing is a person who is not a lawyer. While Chomsky is popular he does not even have a law degree to be offering a legal opinion on equality of terms. Further since such a claim is being used to link two lawsuits to acts of terrorism, the claim needs to be supported by more then a sole source. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think some users are confused about the purpose of this article. Wikipedia's role is not to 'prove' US terrorism one way or the other. It is to present a collection of cited facts, beliefs and opinions. If we could only present scientifically provable information then there would be no article on Christianity, for example. Chomsky may not be a lawyer, but his opinion carries a great deal of weight around the world and is thus notable. We don't have to prove a person's connection to something else. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If notable opinion and publications suggest there is such a connection, then it is notable and should be included. If we were to prove or disprove something, no matter how conclusively, it would be Original Research, and should be published elsewhere. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
? The difference is too subtle for me. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
See here. I agree with this. When I asked Tom for the reasoning behind this, he said to see above I believe, but I saw no policy-based reason for this on the area mentioned. Can anyone cite any rule on Wikipedia that says in some cases we'll cite the name of the author, and in others the source itself (which is the New York Times in this case)? My gut tells me that the reasoning is to make the statement have less authority as read.
This reference is similar: "Clapp, Rodney (September 1 2002). "When Tulsa Burned A forgotten episode in American terrorism". Christianity Today." The current passage says, "Author Rodney Clapp has described". Why not Christianity Today? I do not see similar notation of author rather than source on other articles. rootology ( T) 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
I also question the part regarding the Baghdad bombings. This part is pure speculation on the part of some agents and the newspaper reporter. Reading the piece also trows much doubt whether anything really happened and by whom and to what effect.
Furthermore, the section dealing with Gladio starts out by saying that it was a NATO operation and the USSD denies any terrorism took place. So, it isn't a US operation and thus doesn't belong here but under another article dealing with NATO.-- Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In this case the ICJ found the united states guilty of the "unlawful use of force" The unlawful use of force means terrorism, that is part of the defintion. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I will look over this. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The United States supported terrorism in Hondorous. More later. Travb ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The following section should be removed in my opinion:
Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.-- Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Small revert war reguarding:
In 1962, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, endorsed Operation Northwoods, a plot to gather public support for military intervention in Cuba. The plot called for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the development of a "terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington", "sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated)", faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban -- Paraphelion 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)waters similar to a " Remember the Maine" incident. The plan does not make clear whether or not U.S. citizens or military were to be intentionally harmed or killed.
The last sentence was removed. I am not sure why. This paragraph needs to be referenced, if it is okay with everyone, if it has no references within 24 hours (21:39, 17 August 2006), it can be removed. I have added two fact tags. Travb ( talk) 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute as to whether to include Operation Northwoods under the Cuba section or the Within the US section of this article. US Terrorism was perpetrated against Cuba (Operation Mongoose = the Cuba Project) and is well documented (e.g. National Security Archive). So far I know, there is no evidence that Operation Northwoods terrorist acts proposed by the Joint Chiefs against targets in the US were carried out (thanks to the civilian leadership under JFK nixing the proposal). So the Within the US section should only have the acts proposed but not carried out in Northwoods. -- NYCJosh 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I also took out the other bit under Cuba here. Which definition of terrorism does this fit into? Who was terrorized? Who got killed or targeted?-- Kalsermar 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The following was deleted, after being added today: [23]
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. [5] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
Can the user who deleted this explain why? Or I will restore this edit. Travb ( talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see there is some proof that Bush is a terrorist... [25]-- MONGO 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The link provided at the end of the sentence does not mention the Italian Senate, it only mentions the Left Democrat party.
Unless there is some confirmation that the Italian Senate acted on the report, it should be present as it currently is in the article, the delusions of a out of power party whose members took millions of dollars from the KGB to form their own clandestine armies, or is that fact too inconvient for this article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the edits the past day, I think it is important to bring in a third party mediator to avoid a full fledged edit war. I will hold off, see what happens in the next day.
There appears to be three parties too this argument:
The parties who seem most effective are the last two. Deletions by the first group are quickly reverted. Again, I am concerned that not one of these deletionists has added a single source to this text. Many users have added nothing to the article, except for minor word changes which better reflect their POV. For those deletionists who continue to delete large portions of text: you are on the wrong webpage. Wikipedia favors those who can source their POV, not those who delete large sections of text which do not meet their POV. I hope a mediator will calm the deletionists urge to delete, and not add anything to this article. Travb ( talk) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As per: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:
If we can all follow these suggested guidelines, we can avoid calling in a third party mediator and a revert war. Travb ( talk) 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Posted it to Tom above, here for review. How is "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." not read to include deletions? The policy here makes no exclusion between the two. I.e., deleting sourced material needs to be justified. rootology ( T) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the weight of scholarly opinion, the aim of Truman and other key US decision makers in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Soviets, then correctly understood as emerging out of the war as the major rival to US power, the ability and willingness of the US to use nuclear weapons and their devastating effect on large human targets; Japan was already persuing peace talks that Summer and was days away from agreeing to surrender. Therefore, according to this view (most historians who have studied the issue), the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet most reasonable definitions (including the US legal definition) of terrorism, EXCEPT that there was a declared state of war between the US and Japan. My question therefore is the following: Should this state of war be considered irrelevant, since the acts in question had nothing to do with the prosecution of the war. The war only provided a cover for acts that were aimed at generating fear in a (then ally) emerging rival. Should Hiroshima and Naga be included as nuclear terrorism? -- NYCJosh 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This entire section was deleted earlier by other wikipedians, and I restored it, under the mistaken impression that the entire section I restored was part of the code. As a fig leaf and comprimise to my conservative wikipedians, I deleted this sentence. This sentence needs to be citied if it is to appear in the article. Thanks for catching this error on my part User:NYCJosh Travb ( talk) 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to define exactly what should be in the article and what should not be in the article. "Terrorism" is a label that can apply to many actions.
Does terrorism in this article deal with:
Here is my first attempt at what terrorism is, from the deleted dictionary defintions I had put on this page before:
Terrorism: General Definition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
|
Legal Defintion, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996 Merriam-Webster:
|
I personally like this defintion is best: The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.
So the following would be included :
The following would not be included :
Any alternatives?
Signed: Travb ( talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree what this article is going to cover? Can we agree that, staying true to its title, it will cover allegations of state terrorism? I hope we do and if so, that means that non implemented things, or opinions that are clearly not applicable, should go. As an example I deleted the Yugoslav court case. It might not have been pretty, or necessary, for the Clinton admin to go into Yugo, but it was a military operation, not terrorism. Note to that the "court" took no action. This article should not degenerate into a list of accusations and opinions from anti-americans against anything the US has ever done, planned or even thought to have planned.-- Kalsermar 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kalsemar, by your logic, the attacks against the WTC on 9/11 may also not be terrorism since it was a "military operation" by an international guerilla army trained in large part by the US in the 1980s in Afghanistan who were fighting, in their view, a defensive war against the US and its allies in the region.
Let's consider the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia, like all members of NATO, including the US, are member states of the UN, and have signed the UN Charter and are therefore bound by it. The UN Charter provides only two exceptions to its ban on member states attacking fellow member states (the very reason the UN was established after WWII was to prevent war): 1. UN Sec Council authorized action, 2. A threat of imminent armed attack. Neither condition was met in bombing Yugo. No UN Sec. Council Res. It was not even alleged thatt Yugo was about to attack any NATO country or threatening to do so. So it seems that the NATO bombing was illegal. Was it a war? Did any NATO countries declare war? No. So if it's an illegal attack that includes the deliberate targeting of civilian targets (Belgrade bridges, radio stations, electricity plants etc.) why isn't it terrorism? Did I become "anti-American" by thinking these thoughts? -- NYCJosh 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is it mentioned as a 'renegade' act? It was part of Operation Whella Wallawa, not some isolated accident. Green01 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection
There have been so many sections of this article deleted, I can't keep up. It is obvious that there are two groups here: a group who wants to build this page, and a group who wants to complete delete it, section by section, including the initiator of the AfD. I want to revert to an earlier version, before half the article was deleted, but this would destroy many valuable edits, and these sections will simply be deleted again. Travb ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This user is not much different from other deletionists with this page:
Total words deleted in this article by user: 1,963 words, number of words added: 3. Documented all here on this temporary page: User:Travb/Deletions#Deletions
Signed: Travb ( talk) 01:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
(archive)