This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:AbUS

I'd suggest that that's a reasonably well-thought out idea. If someone is willing to do the grunt work to make sure that some of the deleted material, if sourced, is reproduced in the (more?) appropriate "main" articles, we can stubify this and begin the process of rebuilding. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the main articles should have mention of this POV but not given undue weight. Instead they should point to the larger article that is able to get into depth regarding the allegations of state terrorism. In other words the main articles simply say that "this also has been termed as state terrorism by critics,...etc" and it points here for the larger discussion and detailed exposition of this viewpoint--not the other way around. However, if there are new articles created for each one of these sections, then yes, it should be smaller here and larger there, as then the new article becomes the "daughter" article that give is much more space (a whole article), whereas this article only gives it a section.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of stubbing and rebuilding is a poor one for two reasons. 1) The content of this article is largely well-sourced and relevant to the topic. It presents multiple sides of the discussion, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Its problems are that it's too wordy and that it could do with even more opposing views, but those are matters for refining through editing, not a do-over. 2) The real difficulties with this page are on the edit page, where editors with opposing views are often trying hard to work together but are stymied by frequent reversions and self-proclaimed "bold" edits deleting swathes of well-referenced and relevant material. It's very hard to make constructive edits to a section that is flashing in and out of existence, everyone focuses on the existence drama and useful editing goes by the wayside. Reducing to a stub is the same thing writ large. When I first started looking at this page I thought it needed an informed admin to re-write it and lock down for minimal editing. Now I've seen what the wikipedia admins interested in this article actually do to it (mostly deleting large sections of well-referenced material instead of knuckling down to the hard work of proper editing), I'm inclined to think it would be far better off without any of their disruptive involvement, which has caused pages of angry discussion here while not helping the content of the article in the slightest.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of good information in the article and I think moving that to other articles and stubbing this one would be a great idea because the information has historical value but it being US state terrorism is problematic in the extreme. We can give a few quotes from Chomsky and others and leave it at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections may be better covered in full elsewhere, and in summary form here. That's something that can be considered section-by-section on individual merit. But that's not the same thing as stubbing the whole article. The subject of this article (roughly "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the US") was upheld in the recent AfD as a notable subject appropriate to have an article for. I don't recall any policy suggesting permanently stubbing an article on a notable subject just because it's contraversial as you're suggesting, and I think "temporarily" stubbing it is a bad idea for reasons above.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Ultra was working to move some material to related articles in "state terrorism" section. I am not sure how far he got, I do know he moved the Japan stuff so I cut down the section in the sandbox. You can see it here User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 (bottom) In general I would support moving the information then reducing the sections here that are larger then 4 paragraphs down to 3-4. An introductory paragraph, an allegations, and a justification, perhaps 30% or so each. The only section this may not be appropriate for is Cuba since it covers so many different operations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the article describes not alleged state terrorism but details about the events that are regarded as alleged state terrorism, and this material does not belong here. We do not, to use the first example need to know all about Operation Mongoose, we need one or 2 lines that sources impeccably these alleged terrorism claims and link tot he article. We do not need to reproduce the whole affair. And its the same for all the other examples that I can see. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, which is why I shortened the Japan section and recommend a 1 paragraph lead, 1 paragraph justification for the action, if one is present, and a 1 or two paragraph of allegations. The idea of stubifying the article is a pipe dream and something that would clearly not reach a consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see if we can reduce the unnecessary details (anything outside the remit of the title) and then a stub proposal will not be necessary. I am particularly happy to work with the Latin American material. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Write Stuff, I think your summary version of the Japan section at User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 looks pretty good. However, there is likely to be a tussle over whether mention of the "civilian target" argument should be covered. Giovanni thinks its an integral argument, and Ultramarine thinks its not supported by the sources. Without input from those interested parties it will be hard to get it to stick, regardless of its quality. Perhaps we could all discuss this on the talk page for your sandbox and try to reach a consensus summary version? We could also put up summaries of what each of the sources actually say (the most important thing, but often overlooked here in the heat of debate), which would inform where they are best used. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra already agreed to it above. I think it makes a nice concise middle ground. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much my vote counts but I think the Japan section as it was is good. It is one of the more interesting things I've read and caused me to think. Yes, the targeting of civilians part of the argument is central so that should not be taken out. But if it is not sourced we should find good sources.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also totally against the idea of stubbing the article, even temporarily. Lets continue working on one section at a time. But no trimming down to summary sections, unless there is a main article that includes all the content to be removed, or will be made to include all the content. In other words, no lost content. And the summary sections, if appropriate to summarize, need to fairly represent the different viewpoints. For example, the Japan section has to represent the reliably sourced and notable viewpoint that the bombings were acts of state terrorism, despite that fact that there was a war, and despite the fact that many Americans feel differently, since the targets were civilian. That is an intrinsic part of the definition and so it's central to the section. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This idea of stubbing is no more valid than the failed Afd attempt. Its just an extension of it by other means. However, any specific problems can and should be corrected. Those critics are urged to engage with the actual material and subject, and provide specific issues that need correction. Unfortunately, I've not seen a willingness by such to be specific or helpful in this way. I have tried to engage editors in a discussion of the material but they have not been interested. for example, see:[1] So I think we should just dismiss them as not serious about improving this article until they show otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want to polish the turd. Sorry, I disagree. The article is full of bloat, crap, POV, historical revisionism and in some cases abject violations of WP:NPOV. It is one of the worst articles we have, in my view, and always has been, see--sawing between different biases. As noted above, we go into much too much detail about some of the individual elements, giving an extremely strong impression of novel synthesis. What might be supportable is a short list of things that are widely considered state terrorism, a list of things that a very few sources (mainly Chomsky) describe as such, and a brief discussion of "war terrorism", a revisionist term but one which has some currency as part of just war theory. If we don't approach it on that basis, this article will revert to being a collection of POV-forks of the main articles on the individual operations, which is what it is now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a great article that is an important part of a scholarly literature within a subject that has been growing. Your lack of appreciation for it, I suspect, stems for your not being familiar with it. Have you read any books on the subject? And, no, it's not just Chomsky (although he was an early pioneer in the field). In any case, in order for you to be helpful, I request that you please drop vague and sweeping generalizations. Instead, please provide specific examples of alleged NPOV or SYN problems so that they can be looked at, and corrected. What I find interesting is that those who make these claims are always unable to support those claims with specifics. Either that or they have a flawed understanding of policy, as shown by the failed Afd. The arguments arguing for deletion seem to repeat some of these flaws. But we can determine the basis of your objections if you drop the irrelevant names calling (unless this is an article about "Turds"--its not), and engage the actual material in an intelligent manner.

You mention historical revisionism. Why is that a problem? Historical revisionism are legitimate parts of scholarship: revisions of previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. Are you saying that this is not allowed here? Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the word. The variety of historical revisionism that is included here is of the legitimate type: a "critical reexamination of historical facts... updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate." The Japan section certainly represents a subsection of that larger revisionist POV (against the traditional historical verdict at the time)--and in fact says so within the text. So I'm not sure what your point is (unless your arguing that it's advancing a claim that is of the other illegitimate variety? If so would challenge you to support those claims with both showing us the specific instance of this in the article and providing a valid sources that informs and supports your designation, because I am familiar enough with the material to know that if you argue this, you are wrong. Since WP is not censored, and these are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field--we do give them a full voice here. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter. A short "list of things" will simply not due. We have articles for lists, but this article presents the discussion of the subject. So its much more than a list. And, its a false dilemma logical fallacy to say that it has to be either or: short list or crap.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No ad hominem please. Factual arguments and avoid discussion of persons please. Regarding the Japan section there are certainly many problems as discussed elsewhere here. For example, no mention of the opposing views regarding military necessity or moral justification presented in the main article. So I have to agree that it is currently a POV-fork although there are proposals aimed at improving it. Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be on topic of state terrorism. The section is not a pro/con about dropping the bombs. There is a whole article where that is covered. I never make ad hominem arguments either.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The given sources for the claims of military necessity or moral justification does not accuse the US of state terrorism. So a double standard to include these sources and arguments when not including opposing views on military necessity or moral justification. Clearly a POV-fork only having views from one side.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another dead horse argument. It was settled that not everything needs to say "state terrorism," for it to be included. It must be in context and logical to the arguments of state terrorism, and supported by sources, even if indirectly. That is the standard. Making arguments about saving lives, etc. are off topic to this articles subject, unless there is some novel argument that says that if an act of terrorism involves saving lives then its really not terrorism? I don't think such a thing exists as terrorism deals with method, a tactic. For you to try to force other arguments causes it to either be off topic or OR, in this context.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not settled. WP:OR and WP:SYN applies. Clearly a double standard to argue that sources and arguments not mentioning state terrorism should be included while excluding sources supporting the US for not mentioning state terrorism. Although the version now protected do include some such sources. Another problem is that there are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters.Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find interesting is that idea that in an article that is suppose to contain Synthesis issues, we are being asked to rename all instances of "state terrorism" to "war terrorism." --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in a previous section I now agree with Ultramarine's assertion that there are no sources in the Japan section whose arguments are explicitly based on the Target Committee meeting. We can't mention the Target Committee unless such a "interpreting" source is identified (and if it's not available online we'll need a quote provided to demonstrate it really does mention the Target Committee). However, I don't think any of the Japan discussion above relates to Guy's proposal. The Japan section can be balancing with more sourced counter-arguments, tidied to only include sourced material, and made more concise. All business-as-usual editing. Stubbing the article because some sections need that sort of basic wiki editing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The "historical revisionism" argument is one that should be included in the text if it can be sourced, and the "I don't think it was terrorism" argument is irrelevant. It's valid to describe contemporary academic and political dispute, which is what this article currently does. All it needs is standard wikipedia editing to balance it, ensure appropriate references are used (we would all benefit from close examination of the sources and admitting that some, like the Target Committee, are currently inappropriate), and make it more readable. -Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed the info regarding the targeting committee in the sandbox version linked to above, bottom portion is my recommended version which Ultra has agreed to. Let me know what you think. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the version at the bottom of User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 is an okay summary. If we carried on with moving the Japan section to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I'd be happy for this summary to replace the Japan section here and then be refined with time. The main refinement that seems necessary is that it's still a list of statements, it doesn't summarise the arguments at all. Two other issues that could perhaps be dealt with now: 1) I added the "total war" arguments that the targets were not civilian and were military. However, the summary does not argue that bombings civilians is a core argument for it being terrorism (it just implies it in one quote), and doesn't argue they weren't military. So these counter-arguments now seems orphaned, it's not clear what they are countering. If we could re-introduce the "civilian target" and "non-military target" arguments then these counter-arguments would be appropriate again. 2) I'm confused by the statement 'Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention. He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."' So it's quoting Coady, and Coady says "Coady instances..."? Is he talking about himself in the third person, or is that last sentence supposed to be an editorial statement outside the quote?Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine, to clarify, the above users are correct in their statement that sources need to be proper and in context, but they don't necissarilly have to mention state terrorism, as long as it is in context. This goes for you as well, no one is stopping you from adding links to sources that are in context and do not mention ST, but make sure that they are in fact in context, regardless of who is adding the links. Hooper (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there is no mention of the CIA operated overthrow of the democratic government in Iran: "1953 Iranian coup d'état" --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we need references that state that this is allegedly an act of state terrorism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost positive that there was a source at one point, an ex-CIA officials, or perhaps someone on the talk page was mentioning it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I give up, I gave it 10 minutes. I hope someone with better sources and stamina than me can find something directly connecting "state terrorism" with the operation, if such source indeed does exist. I wonder what it would be called if it was Iran that had done the same to the US? Never mind, we probably need another article though, "U.S. meddling in other states internal affairs" or similar. This is the only source I could google on short notice. I have no idea about its reliability, with my luck its just a mirror of an earlier version of the Wiki article. Nevertheless it lists Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury as U.S. state terrorism. It also lists tha Nicaragua intervention in the 1980, and something called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, although I see that that one is already mentioned. Food for further source searches perhaps, but not by me....--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a mirror cite of an old wiki-article, in any case it's certainly not a reliable source. I'm not sure we've ever had a source alleging that the overthrow of Mossadegh was state terrorism. It's been widely condemned, but it was a pretty straightforward coup e'etat (albeit with a lot of complex elements to it - it was not simply a case of US manipulation). Also to an extent the UK was more the driving external force behind the coup, even though the CIA had a major hand in it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious and looked up to see what I could find on Operation Ajax in the following reliable source: "Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination through Fear" a Book by William D. Perdue; Praeger, 1989. The author is was the Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and the Director of the Contemporary World Studies program at Eastern Washington University. I present the material here for evaluation, and include additional material that might be considered beyond the scope of this article but to provide for context; I'm referring to some of the economic analysis. Here is a chapter on Ajex (excerpts) that implicates the US in the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadeq, and describes its resulting in an "Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

"In what has been a recurring theme in the centers of Western power through this century, the Eisenhower administration feared the loss of Iran to Soviet influence, and its C.I.A. became a key-player in the British proposed operation “Ajax” (Roosevelt, 1979). C.I.A. agents assisted in the orchestration of “pro-shah” riots (Copeland, 1969:51)...The Mossadeq government fell on August 19, and the shah returned three days later courtesy of “an American operation from beginning to end (Tully, 1962:96).”...West and its shah went busily about creating the precipitating conditions that could only resurrect the dormant forces of theocratic reaction in the years to come. Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

In the decade following Mossadeq's ouster, the shah moved internally to suppress the Tudeh party and the National Front (Ramazani, 1975:326). One crucial event was the formation in 1957 of the National Security and Information Organization, the acronym for which from the Farsi language is SAVAK. SAVAK was created with the aid of the U.S. C.I.A. and F.B.I, and the Israeli Mossad (Abrahamian, 1982:419)... SAVAK was to become a hated and feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition from the left or right."

It was, however, the new imperial ties with the United States that implicated a superpower in the excesses of the court and the economic violence visited on the poor (Pesaran, 1985:15-50)....By means of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and the Law for the Attraction and Protection of Foreign Investment in Iran (1955), Western (and particularly, U.S.) hegemony was assured. Foreign investors were offered guarantees against losses owing to nationalization, and between 1950 and 1970, U.S. military and economic aid to Iran amounted to some 2.3 billion dollars.

Under U.S. tutelage, Iran was absorbed into a Western model of development marked by several distinctive properties. A preference for a few large-scale projects (ranging from factories to the construction of dams and intercity transportation) disguised economic fragmentation and the continued neglect of the agricultural sector. Iran devalued its currency, increased its money supply and lent huge sums to the private sector. The resulting “boom” coexisted with inflation and deficits, leading to International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) “stabi-lization” in 1960 with its standard austerity measures: control of private sector credit, import-controls, cuts in government services and higher interest rates. A Western-style White Revolution (a clear historical reference to anti-Red forces in the Russian Revolution), called for...privatization of state industries. These in concert with I.M.F. austerity measures...

However, massive growth in Iranian oil revenues proved only to fund its splendid dependency. At the international level, in the classic sense of “boom-erang capitalism, ” the shah used petrodollars to support Western export industries, including vast expenditures on modern armaments. In 1977 alone, Iran purchased arms worth 2.3 billion, out of a total 6.5 billion exported by the United States (United States Bureau of Census, 1979:367). Military sales from the U.S. alone for the five-year period 1973 to 1977 amounted to 15.2 billion (Halliday, 1979:95). The “development” of Iran was in keeping with the shah's commitment to convert Iran into a “Great Civilization” and the world's fifth-ranking power. Internally, the inequality of dependency relations was reproduced with wealth concentrated by class and in the cities.

The United States offered to meet the shah's obsession for sophisticated military hardware, technicians, and advisers. The shah in turn agreed to use the armed force of his state to defend Western interests in the Persian Gulf. This political alliance revealed more concretely the real power behind the Peacock Throne. But the relationship born in splendor was to end in ironic ruin.

...The hated shah was on the soil of the nation whose C.I.A. had engineered his return to power in 1953, and that had presided over the international construction of its modern dependency. It was in this context that students loyal to Khomeini took the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, and provided the Imam with one tool to seize control of a potentially authentic revolution."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US involvement in the coup can certainly be criticized. But the question is if it was state terrorism. If, admittedly arbitrarily, using one of the many definitions of terrorism which sees it as violence against civilians with the purpose of influencing the government, then a coup is not state terrorism. It changes the government directly. A separate question is if US support of the Shah makes action done by his security agencies US state terrorism. That is dubious also according to this definition of terrorism. Again, civilians were not attacked in order to influence government policy. Again, the US could be criticized for this support but not for it being US state terrorism. If criticizing the US, we should also point out the good things the Shah did, like the White revolution, and the US would seem to able to claim credit for this.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logical, however, I think it passes in this context since it the regime is describes as perpetrating terror, targeting its own civilians (political parties, etc). The source calls it, in fact, the "Iranian Regime of Terror: 1953-79." Specifically the SAVAK as the "feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition..." And, it implicates the US in supporting and bringing the regime to power. So I think we have all the logical elements there to include it. Its just a question of how and to what degree. Also, we should have multiple sources, as well. Also, I disagree taht this should be about good vs. bad "things" the US did. This is not about making judgments are trying to balance good things vs bad things. That would be too much off topic (better left in the other article that talks about the reforms). Here we are only interested in a certain aspect of the coup and its repurcusions, as they pertain to allegations of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with your logic the important thing is that we can include it if we have reliable sources, and if we do not have reliable sources we cannot include it. personally I want to work seriously on the article when it gets unprotected so we stick to the point (talking about alleged terrorist allegations) and don't use the article to talk about the details opf any alleged terrorism. So if Chomsky says it was terrorism we dont spend 2 paragraphs talking aboputt he operation, we say that Chomsky thinks it is terrorism for "x" reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what we're coming to agreement on, that we need to be concise in the amount of background information given aside from the allegations themselves. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Background material should be used only so as to intelligently discuss the allegations, and provide relevant and direct context to them. The question is: does it help to explain the nature of the "state terrorism" in question? But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!). Where to draw the line is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do we have source accusing the US of state terrorism? A source accusing Iran of terror does not mean that this is US state terrorism. If providing background info, we must also include such on good things that the regime did like the White revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite the correct standard. Yes, it includes direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism, of course, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this article's scope also includes allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror. That is what the sources above do. Also, reforms initiated that has nothing to do with state terror are off topic, in my view. They will bloat the article/section, and are best left for their own article. This is not about balancing pro/anti US, as this article is not about pro/anti US govt. policies. Its not a debate. It is a presentation of the relevant literature on allegations of State Terrorism in which the US is significantly involved.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the "direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism". No, the article is not titled "allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror." That the US supported Iran does not make the US responsible for everything done by Iran. I see no allegations that coup involved terror although the Shah's regime later is accused of this. Also, is use of "terror" the same as terrorism? No, the definitions are more complex. If we include general background material, then we must do so in a NPOV way. If we include material about the Shah not accusing the US of state terrorism but criticizing him generally, then we must also include opposing view like the White revolution. Also, background material must be brief and summarized. There are other articles discussing the Shah's regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is beating a dead horse again, also its a logical fallacy to claim that allegations of significant US complicity in State Terrorism means "the US is responsible for everything done by Iran." That is a straw man. No one is making that claim. But we have reliable sources implicating the US in State terrorism by funding, supporting, financing, training, harboring, etc. actions that reliable sources say are state terrorism. Therefore we can report on that. This standard has long ago been settled on so I don't see a need to rehash it, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no such settlement. Please give the quotes I asked. To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... or a source accusing the US of funding or otherwise supporting state terrorism. But yeah, for the purposes of this article, sources accusing the Shah of terrorism are not useful. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. The source accuses that US of funding or otherwise supporting a state "regime of terror.' As Ultra knows there is not one agreed definition which is why we must rely on reliable sources instead of picking and choosing which qualifies per our own definition (that would indeed be OR).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote. Since you ignored it I will repeat it "To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary."Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore your points, I answered and refuted them. 1. Straw man fallacy, and 2. definition issue is OR, on your part. Read above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Straw man fallacy"? Why? Are you arguing that the US is responsible for everything done in nations they have supported? Like the Soviet Union during WWII? Regarding "terror", it is you who are doing OR when arguing that it is a synonym of "terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd read "state terrorism" into "regime of terror". There's enough solidly referenced material here; we don't need to include stuff that's admitted by interpreting and arguably stretching the source's words: That would just reflect poorly on the rest of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats certainly a reasonable and valid counter argument, unlike the straw man fallacies by Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What fallacies? You have not answered my questionsUltramarine (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice. No need to keep repeating this on the talk page when everyone can clearly see it. It becomes a distraction. If want, you can drop me a message on my talk page and I can explain it there (many times).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads the discussion will see you have not answered my arguments. The place to discuss article issues is here.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using exactly your arguments I could cite sources accusing Stalin of terror during the WWII. As well as the extremely large military and economical aid to the Soviet Union. Synthesizing this I would then create a section accusing the US of state terrorism in the Soviet Union.Ultramarine (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are good sources that assign a significant portion of the blame on the US, i.e. that argue the US desired that outcome and supported it through various means to help to bring it out. So if we have sources that argue and connect any instances of State terror with arguments of US culpability, then yes, we could include that. However, unlike the CIA sponsored coup Operation Ajax, I doubt you have any sources that make the claims you're making. I agree with Sidhekin, though, that currently, its called "terror regime" which may not exactly be state terrorism. So that is a valid argument (unlike yours), and therefore we should look at more sources to get a better picture to see if this qualifies as an instance of state terrorism. But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about. Terror by proxy, though clients states, certainly counts, and in fact forms most of the allegations within this article. And no more straw man arguments, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about." Again, this is not a general US criticism article but one about state terrorism. Again, do you have a source stating that Iran was US state terrorism? Then quote it please. Regarding possible "straw mans" none of my two arguments was that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when you when you argue, "US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime," you are making a straw man argument because one one is claiming that the US is responsible for "everything."76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, you really need to stop this thing you do where you say "X source says that US act Y was bad and reprehensible, so therefore it's state terrorism and should be in the article". That's OR and SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Giovanni is saying that. At least that is not what I got. The issue seems to be that the source describes it a terror regime. Is that the same as state terrorism? That seems to be the only issue here. "Bad and reprehensible" = "state terrorism" would be OR. But "terror regime"="state terrorism" is much closer.76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terror is not necessarily terrorism. See above. Nor is the US responsible for everything done in nations supported. Again, please give a source making the accusation of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to seem like a silly wikilawyering argument. "terror regime" does not have to be equal to state terrorism, however it may. If its being called a terror regime because they committed terrorism against civilians for political purposes, then its state terrorism, however there are many reasons it could have been labeled a terror regime. Again context is obviously the driving factor. I do not think this is really a case of OR or SYNTH unless the "terror regime" is not due to the regime, ie the state, committing terrorism against the civilian population. If everyone would just stop and think, instead of slinging alphabets, perhaps this page would be less hostile. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A Terror Regime described in this context in a book called "Terrorism and the State" in which it describes a the terror regime from 53 to 79, is describing and referring to that government. As such we are talking about the State here. I think its valid. But, we should use the authors term, "terror regime" instead of state terrorism (distinction without a difference?) unless we have other sources. In any case, I'll look for additional sources when I have some time in the next few days. I agree we need to drop the wiklawyering here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all bizarre. Overthrowing a govt, democratically elected or otherwise, isn't (state) terrorism, except by a defn so wide as to render the term meaningless. Discussion belongs under US foreign policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that depend on the means to do it? You do realize most "terrorists" are attempting to over throw governments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Terrorism is a means; overthrowing a govermnent is an end. But I still don't think "terror regime"="state terrorism" is going to hold up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another straw man. No one is claiming that overthrowing a govt is state terrorism. However, the there is nothing bizarre about the claim that this coup involved state terrorism as its quite common place both in maintaining power and establishing it through violent means. This does not mean that its the same as a coup, but a coup attempt can certainly employ state terrorism. The key to grasp is that its the method, the tactics, that is the of import here. And if we have reliable sources that make the claim about this particular conflict as employing state terrorism, that is all we need to worry about. Applying our own definitions and understanding to what is or is not state terrorism, what is too broad or too narrow, is an excercise in futility.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, overthrowing a govt isn't state terrorism just as war isn't state terrorism. War, or coups, supercede terrorism. No wonder this article is such a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually war, coup, and other forms of conflict with violence or threatened violence frequently employ the tactic and of terrorism, esp. among state actors. This is according to various reliable sources. These are apples and oranges: goals and tactics should not be confused.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where this logic stems from. Its like saying there are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan since both are war zones. So when "a person" blows up a dump truck in a school killing children, it was clearly an act of war. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In empirical political science "war" is usually defined as at least 1000 battle deaths involving armed combatants. Attacks against armed persons are usually not seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that classify September 11th as an act of war, not an act of terrorism? Armed combatants are not civilians, so attacks against them would not fall under war by your definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The civilians killed in 9/11 were not armed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny we don't have an article on Alleged state terrorism by the United Kingdom, Alleged state terrorism by Iran etc. I propose we change the name of the article to Allegations of state terrorism, this would avoid the POV issues of solely talking about alleged state terrorism by one country when there are and have been accusations against many countries from South Africa (apartheid era), Spain, Iraq (Saddam era) and a very long et al. This would solve many issues, what say folk. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a different article. In fact there is one that has a list of countries under state sponsored terrorism. See: [2]Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:PrefixIndex/Allegations of state terrorism, including Allegations of state terrorism by Iran. Okay, some are just redirects, but this is not the only article there; would you propose to merge them? I'd vote no: This article more than long enough and more than touchy enough as it is. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much material here specifically covering allegations of state terrorism committed by the US for it to be merged into a parent article about allegations of state terrorism in general. There are no POV issues in talking about allegations that a specific country uses state terrorism, so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented). If there is sufficient sourced material to warrant an "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United Kingdom" article then it should be created. It is natural for subjects with large quantities of data to have these kinds of content forks.Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather continuing my point from above, on so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented), a section titled "Opposing Views" referencing a term (democide) not even in a dictionary and stating the U.S. might not be considered to be as evil as the Khmer Rouge (as an example) is hardly "balance."

   It would appear that instead of having a bunch of events under a title stating they are alleged to be terrorism they should be described as what they are, subversive activities--and the article have a section titled "Allegations of state sponsored terrorism." THAT would be "NPOV". By taking real events with real consequences and lumping them under a title with "allegations" substantially diminishes their significance and does a disservice to nations and peoples impacted. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Opposing views" should be used when the view is opposed, and "Justifications" should be used when the issue has been rationalized. For example, Hiroshima, is often not opposed, simply justified by the possible dead if they did not bomb, so a justification section may be more appropriate. Perhaps "Alternate view" --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are many alternative views, but the problem is that its off topic to this article, and will just repeat these other debates found in other articles. To any alternative or opposing view should really be about the topic, i.e. arguments logically connected with those that claims/arguments of state terror. NPOV does not mean, "include any argument to make the US look good" to create an artificial balance and pretend that they are opposed, let alone related, to the arguments that this article deals with. And that is the problem with most of Ultramarine's wish list additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as we are asking Ultra, and those who oppose even the topic, to see past the strict semantics, it is historically obvious that the US has argued that Hiroshima was necessary. The response to accusations has always been the death toll. The US usually does not oppose a view, just present what it feels were its justifications. I think not including these is unwittingly supressing the other PoV which we need to be careful of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PētersV - I think I follow your meaning that discussing world events under a title that includes the word "allegations" might imply that whether these events occurred is in question. I don't agree though. The article includes the atomic bombings, which no-one disputes happened. The "allegations" term concerns whether the events were terrorism, not whether they happened (although in some cases how or whether the US was involved is also disputed). I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt that they will understand the distinction. This article reports on the notable cultural phenonema of allegations that the US has committed terrorism (sometimes including a sub-phenonema of allegations that the frequent use of "terrorism" allegations by the US is hypocritical). The article describes this phenomena, the reasoning given by those making the allegations, and the counter-reasoning of those who disagree. The counter-arguments are discussed section-by-section in order to provide a neutral point of view. That's necessary, because each sub-allegation is different and has been responded to differently. There is already an article about US foreign policy that includes more general criticisms, without using the word "allegations" (except about whether US torture behind closed doors is happening, which seems an appropriate usage). Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I believe that a lot of folks here have had their priorities backwards. I have always maintained that the body of an article is not an entity that attempts to elaborate whatever is implied by the title so much as the function of the title is to attempt to encapsulate the subject of the article. The title should not assume such significance that it is employed to mechanically delimit the subject matter of the article. Rather, it is the task of explicating a notable discourse that should have priority. The title should simply reflect the essence of that discourse.

This article for me has always been – at least in large part- about explaining a notable social discourse that is advanced by numerous reliable sources about the subject of U.S. state terrorism. Accordingly, the discourse encompasses far more than just allegations. Various themes are explored: including the U.S. role in the construction and maintenance of the institutions of state terrorism, ie: death squads, and para-statal counter-terror networks; the role of the arms trade; discussion of international conceptions and definitions of terrorism and the role of the hegemonic power in establishing these norms; themes concerning the relations and alliances that are established between groups in the hegemonic power and ruling groups in the periphery; analysis of possible motivations such as economic interests (including the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil), or the role of anti-communist ideology; the U.S. role in the evolution of state terrorist methods and technology; a critique of mainstream discourses about terrorism; discussion of coercive diplomacy as a form of state terrorism, discussion of impunity and redress for victims of state terrorism; and discussion of possible effective means of resistance against state terrorism, ie: through the vitalization of international humanitarian law, and greater democratic control of the U.S. executive and those agencies involved in formulating and executing foreign policy, (to name several themes, but not all of them).

The title that consists of “Allegations…” is far too narrow to convey the richness of this discourse, and greatly facilitates highly politicized initiatives (invariably by those unfamiliar with the literature) to suppress anything but the most minimal and truncated expression of this richness by insisting on an artificially literal and narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

To reiterate, I think that one of the primary tasks of the article is to try to explain this social discourse with clarity, accuracy, and a neutral point of view. The purpose of the title is to try to encapsulate the essence of this social discourse. It may very well be that a social discourse is too complex to encapsulate in a single, succinct catch-phrase. It then to seems to me to fall upon the lead paragraph to clarify the subject of the article. After some thinking, the best title that I can come up with is: “The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism” . It has the advantage of implying that it is not established fact but rather a dynamic public discussion, hence subject to further interventions and evolution. It may not be the “golden title” that captures everything important about the article in a single catch-phrase. Nevertheless, perhaps it is possible to convey whatever essential points that it misses in the lead paragraph(s) of the article?BernardL (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations should be in the title for reasons previously stated. Also, this is not a general US criticism article. Not an article about "arms trade" or "the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil". Definitions of terrorism and state terrorism are discussed in the main articles about these topics.Ultramarine (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources relate the arms trade or control of resources to state terrorism or support for state terrorism, then discussion of those things is relevant here. On the name issue, I'm not that keen on "The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism". It still implies the existence of the state terrorism, because it sounds like an article about a discourse about something that definitely exists. Like the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is a debate over something that is accepted fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a section that is long over due. The US involvement in Chile against Allende is quote infamous. Here is an adequate source--the book: "The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression" by Prof. Michael Stohl, and Prof. George A. Lopez; Greenwood Press, 1984. Page 51:

More recently, in the period 1970-1973, the United States worked on a number of levels to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. In addition to nonterroristic strategies such as bribery after the election campaign, the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile. The CIA was implicated in the assassination of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, who was selected as a target because he refused to prevent Allende from taking office. "The United States government attempted to foment a coup, it discused coup plans with the Chileans later convicted of Schneider's abduction, it advocated his removal as a step toward overturning the results of a free election, it offered a payment of $50,000 for Schneider's kidnapping and it supplied the weapons for this strategy." 25 After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal. At least $7 million was authorized by the United States for CIA use in the destabilizing of Chilean society. This included financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"). Finally, in September 1973 the Allende government was overthrown in a brutal and violent military coup in which the United States was intimately involved. The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society." Any objections to the section on Chile?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official documents or other evidence showing that the US was involved in the coup which succeeded as discussed in the main article on this. There may have been US involvement in coup attempts before this. But again coups are not state terrorism. This is not a general US criticisms article. Regarding the alleged support for Patria y Libertad this could possible be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coups are not terrorism, but terrorism may be used for many ends, including coups.

"In addition to nonterroristic strategies [...] the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile." That's an accusation of terrorism right there. Who are these professors, Stohl and Lopez? What weight to they carry? Do other scholars corroborate? — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies". It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stohl is well know, cited and I would say respected, certainly someone who works in the field, Google Scholar. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the source is a reliable one and the authors are clearly making the claim, as Sidhekin point out. They claim that the United States embarked on actions to destabilizing of Chilean society, and describe this as terror. They also state the US supported "right-wing terrorist paramilitary group" as well. These two claims, both direct and indirect, more than meet the burden of proof for inclusion, straw man arguments aside.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the accusation of state terror? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right above you. Its even in italics and made bold. Can't miss it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I would prefer is an actual accusation. The author, based on what I can see above, never really says that the United States has committed state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, as Sidhekin and others have pointed out that the above passage does make an accusation of state terrorism very clearly. So we should use that. Still, I've always said that its better to have multiple reliable sources that support the same claims. So in that vein, here is another source, which might state the case in a way you might better prefer to see.

The source is one we are familiar with here as reliable. The book is: State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism by Frederick H. Gareau. He has a chapter on Chile that goes into some detail, but here are some of his relevant conclusions:

"Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact. That he was a graduate of an American military school and received at least one payment from the agency makes the charge more plausible. But the extent of Washington's role was further clarified..."

Here he then talks about DINA and states concludes that "The United States took charge of the overall coordination of counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries."

"Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region. This much is known. How centralized the coordination was is a more difficult question to answer. How much influence was exercised by Washington in the decision to commit terrorism is a much harder question to answer...The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." Page 78-79.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is another source... "“Chile became the third Latin American country to institutionalize state terrorism. Unlike their counterparts in Brazil and Uruguay, the Chilean military did not temporize. They were not interested in preserving even a façade of civilian governance, and upon overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 they quickly abolished or appropriated virtually every institution that had the potential to oppose them. Unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshall, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end. …The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers- and in some countries, campesinos- had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” (Wright, Thomas C. State Terrorism and Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, 29)BernardL (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And for the same source above, on page 87: "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines section[3] currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States. I am proposing that the section be deleted if such a source cannot be provided. Please discuss. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the resources seem to be in context and proper, so I'll have to disagree with your recommendation. Hooper (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about allegations of state terrorism. Those sources contain no such allegations. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Ice Cold Beer on this one. Jtrainor (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HoopperBandP, where. This has been discussed before and the references support the claims. All the claims are in context too. I suggest going back in the archives to review this discussion before rehashing it again.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the archives. The sources do not indicate any allegations of state terrorism against the United States. If I'm wrong, please show me where any of the sources makes such an allegation. Otherwise, such a source needs to be provided or the section needs to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is built around the accusations of a single individual, E. San Juan Jr, with a bunch of articles in fringe websites. And we also have the accusation of a Catholic friar also publishing in a fringe website; he certainly doesn't count. San Juan is a marginally notable former professor, but these are just webzines he's published these articles in. Unless other reliable sources can be found, I see no foundation to keep this section. - Merzbow (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Catholic priest about whose merits you are so certain are negligible has been nominated 3 times for the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized as an authority on human rights in the Philippines. I do however, recommend expanding the scope of the section to include material discussing the U.S. role in state terrorism by the Marcos and Aquino regimes.BernardL (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he can't find anyone else willing to publish his views than a website nobody's heard of? Being nominated for the Peace Prize is no standard of notability: "In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received." - Nobel peace prize. He has no Wikipedia article about him (Shay Cullen), and the web article in question [4] helpfully informs us to "For more informaetion (sic) see: http://www.preda.org." Is this the standard for high-quality sourcing we want to proud of? - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. San Juan, Jr. is of course notable (has a google hit of over 3 millilon[5], and so s Fr. Shay Cullen who was also awarded the prestigious Human Rights Award from the City of Weimar, in Germany. A Wikipedia article about him could certainly exist and pass notability standards.[6],[7]Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more correct Google search gives 25,000 hits for "E. San Juan, Jr.".[8] Unknown how many of these are about the same person. A prize by a small city in Germany is not notableUltramarine (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being nominated does not make someone noteworthy - not to say that there are no other reasons why he may be notable. On another note:

President Arroyo invited thousands of U.S. Special Forces to engage in police actions together with the AFP, thus violating an explicit Constitutional provision against the intervention of foreign troops in local affairs. She followed Fidel Ramos in implementing the Visiting Forces Agreement, together with other onerous treaties, thus maintaining U.S. control of the Philippine military via training of officers, logistics, and dictation of punitive measures against the Moro insurgents as well as the New People's Army guerrillas. The Philippines became the "second front in the war on terror," with Bush visiting the Philippines in October 2004 and citing the neocolony as a model for the rebuilding of devastated Iraq.

That isn't necessarily state terrorism, so should be removed. The second one isn't much better. Even if that is "state terrorism", it's the Philippine government. The article is about the US committing state terrorism, not supporting regimes that amongst other things are alleged to commit it. John Smith's (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not questionable at all, besides the fact that we should not be questioning what reliable sources say anyway. State Terrorism is almost always a part of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency efforts by states. In fact, Chomsky even says that counter insurgency is just a technical term used by the powerful for state terrorism. Now, I'm not saying that we can then subsitute any claim of counter insurgency/political violence as state terrorism. No, we still need sources that make the explicit claims of state terrorism. However, its completely false--and OR--to say its "highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism." That is not what a reading of the literature says. Rather they go hand in hand.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So a government attempting to suppress an illegal armed group in it's own territory is terrorism? Perhaps you should take up that view over at the Iraq war article to describe the current Iraqi government's activities to suppress the various folks causing trouble over there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legality has nothing to do with it. It can be trying to suppress the pacifist vegetarian society, or the Shining Path: the issue is not who or why a conflict exists, but rather the tactics used by the state when it engages in conflict. When those tactics comprise a certain character and nature that scholars deems as terrorism, then we report on it. It so happens that much of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency operations by State have entailed terrorism by the state, according to the literature. Nothing interesting there to me, and again its not up to use to argue the point: we only report on it. If there are reliable and notable sources making allegations of state terrorism by the US in Iraq, then it belongs in this article, with perhaps a small mention in the main article (we must remember undue weight).

Speaking of illegal, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Those who resist an illegal occupation have the law on their side. But this is not an issue of legality. True state terrorism is illegal as it violates other laws regarding the use of force by states, but its not relevant to considerations of state terrorism per se.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the main point to decide should be if there is a source that states the U.S. government's participation in the Philippines is state terrorism. If this exists, I do not see the problem, however it should be removed if such a source does not exist. I do remember adding one, so unless someone decided to remove it, which case I can readd it, the content should stay. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol Jtrainor (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to where this started... the assertion that he section "currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States". No-one in the discussion above has provided any source which does, only vague assertions of references to previous discussions. Unless someone provides such a source, the section is coming out William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would like the section to come out you mean. I will look back at the older version to see if one exists. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Connolley's hearkening back to the original objection about there being 5 references without accusations of state terrorism by the U.S., I would contend that although the objection has been raised there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors. I would suggest actually reading the references, then picking out the best arguments supporting the notion the accusation in the source that the U.S. is complicit in state terrorism and then subsequently providing argumentation that the source in fact does not make the claim. It should perhaps be kept in mind that most of these have not been included for the purpose of expounding an analysis so much as providing a corroboration that there are in fact folks making the claim. Setting aside for the moment, the question of notability of the source (because it was not brought up in the original objection) we can look at reference #1 [[9]] as follows ... The two most pertinent questions seem to be a) is it being described as state terrorism? From the text we can read: "Meanwhile, the Philippine criminal justice system (described by the Asian Human Rights Commission as “rotten”) will begin to apply this July the heinous provisions of the anti-terrorism bill to criminalize all radical, anticapitalist organizations and all public rallies critical of the neocolonial system, U.S. imperialist aggression, IMF-World Bank, and predatory transnational corporations. UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin has warned that the “Human Security Act” passed by Congress contradicts international principles of legality and is bound to trigger more political killings and other State terrorist abuses. Arroyo’s “lawful” terrorism is bound not only to worsen the misery of 87 million Filipinos over half of whom are direly impoverished (one million leave every year, joining 10 million overseas Filipino workers spread around the planet). State terrorism will surely feed and stoke the fires of revolutionary resistance—both peaceful and armed—against oligarchic barbarism and corporate savagery." Clearly state terrorism is being used as a description. The second pertinent question is whether significant responsibility is being attributed to the U.S. role? In the article being referred to it says: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses. Through various unequal treaties and diplomatic skullduggery, the US government has underwritten the ongoing counter-insurgency operations as part of its “global war on terrorism,” thus justifying the political murders and the unconscionable impunity of both Philippine and U.S. governments." Is that an attribution of significant responsibility or not? We should be able to go through each of the references systematically like this, actually reading them for a change, and presenting their strongest arguments, then assessing them. It seems to me that all of the objections above show no sign evidence of such close scrutiny. I don't have any particular attachment to this section as I had no hand in writing it and do not particularly approve of the methods of the person who was primarily responsible for it. I would only add that there have been other accusations made regarding the U.S. role in the Philippines as an instance of state terrorism for other time periods. Here are links to the other references in the first sentence: [[10]] , [[11]], [[12]] BernardL (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been unclear when I started this section. I did read all of the sources, and not once is the United States accused of state terrorism. I'll take a look at the other ones that you have just provided and give my thoughts on those. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sources you have just provided, the first one does not accuse the United States of state terrorism. The second and third sources are already in the article and, like I've already said, also do not accuse the U.S. of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not make yourself clear because you provided objection without any substantiation. Now regarding reference #1 above I provided some evidence that state terrorism by Arroyo is being described, and that the author believes that the U.S. has significant responsibility for the state terrorism. If you disagree use the textual evidence to deny that the claim is in fact being made. Alternatively you could state a more fundamental disagreement that only the most literal self-contained accusations are admissible for this article. In which case I would disagree.BernardL (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, these sources state that the United States has provided aid for the Philippines, which has engaged in state terrorism. The conclusion that this is state terrorism has been made by the authors of this article, and not by the authors of the sources. If you don't believe that the source actually has to accuse the U.S. of state terrorism, then you are challenging our policy on original research. This talk page is not the place to challenge our policies; you are looking for WT:OR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained on the WT:OR discussion board in the past, asserting that a source must use the same words as the title to qualify is in fact an unduly extreme interpretation of the policy. The same concepts and accusations can be made in different ways, with different words, and material that is directly related to the topic that does not necessarily use the exact terminology is also admissible. The policy states that a source cannot be used in such a way as to distort the original intention of its author. In the case of E. San Juan Jr. I do not think it distorts his intentions or his analysis at all to suggest that his work maintains that the U.S. is significantly responsible for state terrorism in the Philippines. He describes Arroyo state terror, while the U.S. relation to that terror is a central element in the analysis. In this link here [[13]] he clearly implicates the U.S. immediately by the hyphenization in the title : "BUSH-ARROYO FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY." From the same article I have already given references to his descriptions of the state terror and his explanation of the Bush linkages. In a similar manner, here,...[[14]], San Juan demarcates the U.S. role as a central element in his analysis, both in the title, which joins U.S. hegemony to Arroyo state terrorism, and in the section entitled U.S. patronage. A clincher I think is the following San Juan article: "Imperial Terror, Neo-Colonialism and the Filipino Diaspora"[[15]]. After reading it is there any doubt which state San Juan thinks is the agent of "Imperial Terror"? And taking all into account can there be any doubt that San Juan's analysis belongs in a page whose topic is discussion of significant responsibility of the U.S. in state terrorism? BernardL (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue, as mentioned above, is that the sources here are manifestly unreliable. It's already been discussed why the Friar is non-notable. E. San Juan Jr. maybe, but it's only two minor webzines that his words are referenced in here. We need higher-quality sources to justify a section. - - Merzbow (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this was not actually "discussed" since no credible "exploration" was conducted. It was pretty much peremptorily dismissed. Your comments regarding the friar suggested US-centrism. First, you argued that he can't be notable because he did not have his own wikipedia article, as if that was some sort of authoritative criteria especially for someone whose main domain is in the third world and for a situation that receives relatively little media coverage. There is in fact a page on Preda that includes pertinent biographical material about Cullen, for what it matters. The point was raised that he has received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. This in of itself does not establish notability, although it may be considered a point contributing to notability. You tried to minimize this by pointing to the large number of nominees in some years. Taken in stride with such considerations surely must be the consideration that the Nobel Committee requires that its nominations are made by individuals who meet their qualifying criteria. [[16]] The fact that Cullen's nominations were made by elected politicians in Germany and Canada attests to a certain international notability. Subsequently it was pointed out that he received a human rights award from the city of Weimar. This was reflexively and summarily dismissed- by what criteria and by what authority? - Well, according to Ultramarine's expert opinion it is because the city of Weimar is small, therefore the award can have no importance. If we actually cared to explore rather than reflexively dismiss we might learn that ..."Every year since 1995 local people in Weimar have nominated an individual, group or organisation to receive a human rights prize in "remembrance of the historical responsibility of Weimar and as a symbol of the nameless victims of dictatorships and despotic rulers around the world." After the nomination process the presentation committee made up of representatives of Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes, UNHCR, and the Society for Endangered Peoples makes the final decision on who should receive the award for "commitment to human rights in spite of state or state-sanctioned violence or persecution." [[17]]. Perhaps, it is worth recalling that all this fuss is being made about a source who seems to be used among a group of sources providing corroboration for a general claim, not any specific analysis. Maybe after all is said and done, such considerations should be dismissed, I'm all ears to reasonable and substantiated arguments. I just do not share the callous attitude that summarily dismisses moral figures ostensibly doing important internationally recognized work to help suffering people. Incidentally Cullen has also received prizes for human rights from cities in Italy and Switzerland. He has also been featured on CNN [[18]] and Amnesty International [[19]] has no problem with extensively referencing PREDA. (The organization that a priori cannot be notable because you've never heard of it.}BernardL (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may be the bestest, most lovable friar in the world, but he has no scholarly credentials on the subject, nor has he published these accusations in any reliable source. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - WP:RS. A webzine called "Independent Catholic News" with a big fat spelling error at the bottom does not qualify. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors - this is the wrong way round. You have to show that the sources contain what they are claimed to. I agree that [20] shows such evidence, but am dubious that its RS. It appears to be a copy of [21]. Its RS-status is at best unclear. Do you have anything better, or is that it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you specify what it is that you find "dubious" and I will see what I can do to address your concerns. I hope that you are aware that San Juan has a phd from Harvard and just last month received a prestigious fellowship to teach at Harvard, effective in the spring of 2009.[[22]] His writings have extensively studied U.S.- Filipino relations, as evidenced by "U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines," by "After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines-United States Confrontations", and by "In the Wake of Terror: Class, Race, Nation and Ethnicity in the Postmodern World" all by notable academic publishers (Palgrave Macmillan, Rowman & Liitlefield, and Lexington Press, respectively).BernardL (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. SJ's credentials are not the issue (at the moment). What is in doubt is whether the source is RS. It doesn't seem to be, and you haven't found anything better (if SJ is as notable as you suggest, it seems odd that no mainstream media every publish his stuff). Your source appears to be [23] (the fact that you used a copy of this, apparently without realising it, makes it a bit more dubious). Is bay area indymedia a WP:RS? Clearly a debatable point, but not obviously answerable with Yes. It says its "a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area independent media makers and media outlets" which doesn't help. Can you find evidence of it being used as a RS elsewhere on wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply asking for clarification. Another source for San Juan’s views was offered- this link to the St. John's University Humanities Review [[24]]. Does this meet the approval of editors here or not, and why?BernardL (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the most prominent allegation today is the Revrend Wright's. According to abc news: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11: "In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation." Not to joggle elbows if you have something going, but that might be something the article ought to mention. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably lacks credentials as a credible subject matter expert on this material, but it is a widely distributed accusation. Thanks! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable and I have no objection to including these rather truthful allegations. I vote for inclusion. Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that the allegations are truthful is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becomes an interesting problem, while easy to source, he is not an expert in the field, nor representative of any human rights group etc. Do you have a proposed text Tom? --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather points out the whole problem with "Allegations of BAD THING X by Y" articles. We have children in Pakistan taught to recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand being taught the U.S. did the 9/11 attack itself to discredit the Muslim world. Do we include that allegation too? I'm sure we can find a "notable" cleric espousing that view as well. There's no boundary between fact and polemic here. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not an article for "bad things." That is a red-herring that I wish people would stop making. This article is only for notable allegations of State Terrorism--and that is exactly what it is. If it were all 'bad things" we would have a an article a million times the size of this one.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so I ask, is this supposed to be a list of fact or fiction? Or we don't care? —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual, as are Rev. Writes claims. There is nothing fictional here. However, WP standards is verifiability, not "truth." That is policy I believe.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia specifically discusses how articles are not suppose to be "truth" but verifiable. However, I see where you are going and think we can at least draw the line at reputable critic, someone with at least a publishing history in the field, or at least a critical examination. I can accept a world leaders voice, but Wright really is not notable unto himself with his Obama link. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Wright is notable only for his Obama link, not for any scholarly endeavor of his own making. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! Jtrainor (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly endeavors as the sole criterion for inclusion is wrong; notability may be enough for inclusion in this type of article. The standards for historical/scientific articles are different than one about a political opinion article, such as this one. Note that we have President Chavez, who does not have scholarly endeavors, either. But we report his views. The standards in this article include both one of notability and one of high academic quality (the latter is better). Heads of state are automatically very notable. Rev. Writes, may not reach that level of notability, even though his views have been all over the mainstream media. Perhaps if he kept speaking out and became known for these views more so than his link with Obama, then he might be ok for inclusion. I'm ok either way. However, his views should be in his own article where we can put in a wiki-link to this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability-not-truth is merely the criterion for assessing a contribution. It doesn't make it automatically includable. Questions of undue weight apply too. In this case, its clear the the Rev Wright is merely mouthing off and should not be included William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think it should not be included since Wright is not an academic or world leader, this is actually the field he is known for discussing, you can read his article for more information. If by "mouthing off" you are drawing a comparison to an outburst or something similar, then that correlation is incorrect. So while this is an area he frequently discusses, I still think he is not of the level required to have a scholarly discussion. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "known for discussing" a subject is not the same as being a reputable source. Some of the comments above reflect confusion about this. A subject's notability governs their acceptance for a Wikipedia article to be written on them. For a source to be reputable a lot more conditions have to be met. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. It is also a primary reason I do not approve of the addition of the material, as stated above. I was clarifying the difference in "mouthing off" as if he was blowing off steam. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wright's views don't make the grade for inclusion here as notable, as his connection is with Obama. Although I agree with Giovanni that it isn't just academic criteria that determines includability in these kinds of articles, so that's not my reason for opposing. He is certainly notable and his views are relevant and notable in his own article. If he became a well known speaker or writer on the subject of terrorism, independent of Obama, that would be another story, most likely, and would be evaluated then for relevance here. Bob Herbert of the NY Times doesn't support him, referring to his 15 minutes of fame. And that kinda sums it up for me. — Becksguy (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on talk is to keep the Japan section. Currently there are some modifications taking place on a sand box, I understand. Someone just removed the entire section again based on an invalid premise: their OR belief that its not state terrorism because it occurred in the context of a war. This has been extensively discussed and consensus is that the section is completely appropriate to the topic of State terrorism given the many high quality references making the allegation. I've restored it.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Giovanni's restoration and rationale. The deletion was done by an editor that has never before edited the article or talk page. There should have been discussion here before a change of that magnitude was made in a controversial article, per the notice at the top of this page. — Becksguy (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion we need a section covering Japan. It may be wider in scope (war terrorism?); it probably ought to be shorter; but it should definitely be there. Endorse restoration. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on talk is meaningless, since the POV-pushers have driven everyone else away. The Japan section remains, as it always was, revisionist. It's amusing that Giovanni accuses them of OR, since no reliable source calls it an act of state terrorism by the USA, the reliable sources use "war terrorism" and the combination of war terrosiam, the United States and excluding other involved states, gives the novel synthesis that this was state terrorism by the United States. Was Dresden an act of state terrorism by the UK? Was Coventry an act of state terrorism by Germany? It's just revisionist nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The consensus on talk is meaningless" thank you Lord God Almighty for your proclamation from on high that your personal evaluation of the situation overrides policy. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have even read the section and looked at the sources? If you did you would see that we have lot of notable people cited who have described the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism. These are not nobodies, either, but Princeton Professor Richard Falk, and University of Chicago Bruce Cumings, Mark Seldon, et al. If you feel this needs to be beefed up some more, I can add more reliable sources. Back when it was proposed and agreed on, consensus was to keep it relatively concise, so we left out many additional sources. We can expand this section by adding more sources, if that is the issue.

Your objection to this section seems largely centered on your own argument that the bombings are not state terrorism since there was a war going on. Also that its represents a scholarly revision to the traditional view. But both of these points are not relevant rebuttal to the fact that there are notable and scholarly "allegations of state terrorism by the US" when it comes to this issue. As such this Japan section meets the standards of the article, and is one of the more well-sourced sections that make this explicit claim. If you read it its hard to miss.

A couple words about historical revisionism is in order here. You seem to think its something that is not allowed. That is false. The word has two meanings. The correct meaning that is applicable here is that of the legitimate area of scholarship that revises previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. This has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the word. The variety of historical revisionism that is included here is of the legitimate type: a "critical reexamination of historical facts... updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate." The Japan section certainly represents a subsection of that larger revisionist POV (against the traditional historical verdict at the time)--and in fact says so within the text within the article. So what is the problem? WP is not censored to only traditional views. These are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field, so its correct we do give them a full voice in this article as they are discussing this very subject: state terrorism. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G33 will chatter endlessly. There is no consensus to keep. I've removed it again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to learn from me a bit. Not that should should chatter endlessly, but a little more use of the talk page of actually engaging with the substance of the arguments would be good.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The endless chatter has worked quite well as a strategy to paralyse change, but its become too obvious. You need to find a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith. There is no strategy to prevent change. Change and progress has occurred though the collaborative discussion cycle. Sorry that you can't simply impose change by force, against consensus. WP doesn't work that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per talk", eh? You are not making this any easier, WMC, by dismissing talk as "chatter".

'If the word "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'

I've reinserted it. Consider actually using the talk page, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much point talking if people don't bother read what you write. I said G33 will chatter endlessly. Not you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? I said you dismissed talk as "chatter", not that you dismissed my talk (as "chatter" or otherwise). (In fact, you seemed to ignore my talk completely, focussing on G33's alone, but that's another story.) And your continued dismissals ("not much point talking") is still not helpful, nor is your revert warring. Are you even willing to collaborate on this article, or will you insist on having it your way, without discussion? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to talk to you. Talking to G33 or his socks is a waste of time, but as far as I can tell that isn't true about you. So what do you have to say? You've just said that you want the section in. I've said I want it out. These were acts of war, and wiki already has a good article elsewhere about them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley, you are absolutely right. Anything the US does is by definition not state terrorism. These allegations are simply ludicrous. --Paul Pot (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The US does indulge in state terrorism (I accept Chomskys analysis). But this article is very poor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, of course) I've said more before, as this subject has come up often in recent times. And I have refrained from saying even more, as others already have said it, and I rarely see a good reason to repeat what others have said. For starters though ...

In favour of including a section on these act: We have good sources describing them as terrorism, it is a very notable event, and the uniqueness (in many respects) of this case gives this article more depth.

Against what you provide: That they were also acts of war, no one denies; it is just irrelevant. One does not preclude the other. And the usual response to a good article elsewhere would be to summarize, not to excise. As of now, there is not in this article even a link to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or perhaps better, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#State terrorism). If anything, I should think the existence of a good article elsewhere would be good reason to include mention of it here: Build the web, right?

But above all, rather than starting over and over again, see the talk that has already taken place. I recommend Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 22#Japan (1945). — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I look in on this issue, I never see any real consensus for it's inclusion. The rational seems a little disingenuous, but in any case Sidhekin has made his POV on the matter clear enough. I don't think he should be the one reverting as he's been doing. I don't think the case has been made quite yet for the section's inclusion. RxS (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Why not I? And if not I, who? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the archives? This is a long-term, long-standing section that was included after consensus was reached among editors of various pov's. The sources are impeccable and those who wish to blank it have offered no valid arguments, and clearly lack consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You chatter endlessly and repeat the same untruths shamelessly. There is no consensus to keep or include; valid arguments against its inclusion have been given above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to point you to the archive's to show you clear consensus for this section? Lets talk about content, and not editors, shall we?Giovanni33 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only consensus for it's inclusion if you ignore all dissenters and take the opinions of various sockpuppets into account. It goes. Spare me the 500 word replies, your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant as no reliable source supports your assertions on this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you falsely claim that there are not reliable sources that support this, then I will take it you just really are asking for more sources? So I will expand this section by adding more sources from more scholars that support the claims. Any objections? Also, if you keep making personal attacks, I will report you. See WP:CIVIL too. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide valid reason why notable material from reliable sources| presented in a neutral point of view should be removed. Whatever the number of editors saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection on Japan absolutely should stay. I don't see any valid arguments for it's removal, and there was consensus to keep it. State terrorism can and has been committed during war, as these acts by definition are outside the international laws and agreements on the conduct of war, just as crimes against humanity are. Trials such as International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Rape of Nanking, Nuremberg Defense, and Nuremberg Trials support that concept as committed by other nation states. Claiming revisionism won't work either. These are critical reexaminations of historical facts, something done all the time in such areas as history, anthropology, and archeology, for example. There are even reexaminations of Biblical studies in the last century or so, two millennia after the events. The only way this is going to be resolved is to work on the article in a sandbox until there is consensus as to it's content. Because if edit wars flare up again, the article will be locked. Again. — Becksguy (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "state terrorism" utterly uninteresting and boring. Call it that or don't, I really don't care. There are far more interesting historical questions when it comes to those events.

Reading the above though, so far none of the arguments from those who want this section out of the article are remotely convincing. Our own personal analysis or beliefs (which are mainly what are being put forward by those opposed to this section) are, of course, irrelevant unless anyone here has published on these issues. Guy brings up Dresden and offers his own argument about what why he thinks this is not state terrorism. Similarly William M. Connolley says "these were acts of war." Neither are dealing with the fact that this article is about allegations that the US has committed state terrorism and that we have multiple reliable sources that allege that dropping the a-bombs in Japan was an act of terrorism on the part of the U.S. It does not matter what we as individuals think about these issues, and it does not matter if these claims are "revisionist" (which, incidentally, is a complicated word in historiography since it means different things depending on the subject in question). Bringing up the Coventry Blitz or the Bombing of Dresden in World War II is a distraction from the issue at hand. If the latter is described by reliable sources as state terrorism by the US then we could put it in this article (yes, I know the UK was there too). If the former is described somewhere as state terrorism by Germany, and if we had an article on that topic then we could include that.

What matters here is that Howard Zinn, Richard Falk, and, yes, even Hugo Chavez are reliable and relevant sources for an issue like this. We should report their views and the views of those opposed to them as we would for any other article. To be frank, several of those arguing to remove this are those who believe the entire article should be deleted, and as such I think their objection is partially rooted in their idea that having an "allegations of state terrorism" article is a bad idea because it lets in ridiculous accusations such as these (from their point of view). It's obviously fine to think that, but the article exists right now, and we aren't here to re-run the past 37 AfD's section by section. Allegations by notable people regarding a notable incident are exactly the kind of content that is supposed to be here.

It is a fact that this section has been in the article for a long time, and that it was the product of a discussion among a number of editors, some of whom don't even edit here anymore. If folks want to remove it, they need to advance an argument other than "I don't think this should be here and there was no consensus for it and the people who put it here are POV pushers." That isn't going to fly. I see no argument rooted in actual Wikipedia policies for removing this section and until one is articulated there is no reason for removal. And just to add to that, simply showing up on a talk page and saying "no consensus for this!" to a section that has existed for close to a year (I think) without providing a policy based rationale for removing it does not cut it.

Hopefully this won't be dismissed as "chatter"—sometimes it takes a bit of exposition to make a multi-faceted argument.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, however, terrorism was not a word used widely at the time, especially not to describe wars. Any attempt to describe it as such is obvious historical revisionism and thus biased. Jtrainor (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And there is a massive difference between "war terrorism" and "state terrorism". To move fomr the former to the latter is synthetic. There are many tens of thousands of sources discussing the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and an incredibly tiny number, and none contemporaneous, use this term. But the article is clearly going to remain a worthless pile of crap for ever, thanks to the obduracy of the "I hate the US so this is terrorism" and "I love the US so this is not terrorism" camps, any attempt at sense and sanity is doomed to fail, we might as well just tag it as a {{crap article}} and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the argument articulated by Jtrainor and seconded by Guy is quite wrongheaded, to put it charitably (for one thing if it was to be believed the academic discipline called "history" would basically have to fold up shop). Simply because a given word was not "widely used" at a given time obviously does not mean it cannot be employed at a later date to describe some event that took place during that time or the era in general. If that were the case we could not describe London circa 1700 as "pre-industrial," America during the 1950s as "homophobic," or the 16th century as a critical period in the history of "globalization." The fact that the idea of "state terrorism" was not really used during WWII (incidentally I believe the notion of "terrorism" goes back at least to the French Revolution) is completely irrelevant—employing new analytic categories to explain past events is pretty standard in scholarship. I'm rather astounded that I even had to type the preceding phrase. The "contemporaneous" view of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, if anything, less relevant then the viewpoint of a later era when better analysis was possible.

Walzer uses the term "war terrorism" (I don't see how "war terrorism" and "state terrorism" are necessarily mutually exclusive concepts by the way, but that's a tangential point), however several others cited in the article accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism (see my previous comment) So, again, we have reliable sources that make the kind of "allegations" which are the topic of the article. Yes, that is very much a minority view and should be explained as such, but it is highly relevant to the topic. We don't have a rule against covering "historical revisionism" (whatever that means to either of you) and in fact we have a rule that noteworthy minority views are covered. There is nothing new in the preceding two comments and they only express the opinions of the authors without addressing the relevant issues head on.

Regarding anti-Americanism or pro-Americanism, it's best we avoid those terms altogether. I'm an American and will always be one. I don't care for its rampant consumerism, its largely banal television programming, and a great many of the foreign policy decisions made in this country's history. However I like the kindness of folks in the Midwest, the bluntness of New Yorkers, the civic spirit of folks in New England, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Wu-Tang Clan, and even goddamn apple pie. So maybe I don't fit into either the pro or anti category, and maybe that's the case for some other folks here too. Maybe instead of wasting time on labeling editors, impugning their motives, and generally calling names, we can actually waste our time discussing content issues. In the meantime, I'll be waiting for some arguments for removing the Japan content which are even remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy. The entire section fails WP:V and WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, it's easy for you to say something instead of showing that what you are saying is either true or logical, esp. in the face of arguments that refute your dogmatic proclamation. You might as well proclaim that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, that easy to do. Its sad to see the blatant nature of your POV tendentious editing, edit warring, disrupting this article once again by blanking sections against consensus and without any valid reason supported by policy. I see you just reverted again. What good does that do, except possibly get you blocked or banned from this article/topic?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it passes WP:NPOV and WP:RS! Seriously though, you're going to have to explain how it fails those policies. I don't think it does so you need to explain your argument, not just cite policies with which we're all quite familiar.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept and meaning of "historical revisionism" that Jtrainor uses is apparently not the concept that most historians nor the American Historical Association use. See Historical revisionism (negationism) and Historical revisionism. The term has become pejorative and has too much ideological and semantic baggage. It has been corrupted to the point that it's no longer useful in reasonable discourse. For example, the term historical revisionism has been applied to the controversies surrounding the holocaust. Another example: Is it historical revisionism to change the long lasting legend that a few members of the last imperial family of Russia escaped being executed in 1918? In 2007 and 2008, DNA evidence finally identified all the family members, and all bodies have been accounted for, thus historically revising the previous version of two missing bodies, as well as the Anastasia pretenders. And even if the term terrorism wasn't widely used at the time, we are not writing for the world of 1945, rather for the world of the 21st century where it is used all the time. — Becksguy (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, if one is talking about the Vietnam War, the "revisionist" position is to defend the US decision to enter into and continually prosecute the conflict while arguing that the withdrawal was premature. To generally write negatively of the war is the "orthodox" position within the historical scholarship. The term has different meanings in different contexts—it can refer to the general idea of challenging dominant views on aspects of history, or it can be a certain "school" of thought within a sub-discipline of history (for example diplomatic historians who follow in the general vein of William Appleman Williams are often labeled "revisionists" whereas John Lewis Gaddis was at first considered a "post-revisionist" but is now more of a "traditionalist" - these labels would have completely different meanings in other sub-disciplines). Anyhow this issue is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand and I hope we can leave it to the side.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded the shorter version which reached consensus above, including by Ultramarine. For those who refuse to discuss issues on this page, and work on sandbox versions, you are removing yourselves from the "consensus." --I Write Stuff (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A shorter version is fine, but arguably the most notable view in the longer version is that of Richard Falk and I think it's obviously a mistake to leave that out (better him than C.A.J. Coady I would think). Likewise Hugo Chavez should probably be mentioned, seeing as he is a sitting president and all (presidents don't often accuse either nations of committing "state terrorism" half a century ago, so it's pretty interesting when they do). The best thing to do is work off this stripped down version since that will hopefully be seen as a compromise and stop the stupid editing warring. I do think another paragraph would be okay though length wise. Also there are now a couple of errors in the footnote formatting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who participated, the issues was size, and the issue of "morality" being used. I do not remember what I cut completely, but he did not make the morality based argument, feel free to swap things around, however try not to make it much larger as that general size was agreed on. If people would like to examine that, then explain in detail how it violates WP:Synth, or WP:V, etc. I would be glad, as well as I believe others would, to reply to concerns and edit as necessary. The argument of "historical revisionism" is unfortunately an act of WP:OR, as we can not make such a claim ourselves after reading through the material. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise version is better than an edit war, or nothing. It does contain both viewpoints, links back to the main article, and the size is appropriate for a summary section, per WP:SUMMARY. — Becksguy (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reading WP:SUMMARY I note the following: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." It seems to me that "The Debate" is reasonably classified as the "parent article", which is where the summarization should take place. This article is for the detailed treatment of the discussion of the event as an instance of state terrorism. Nevertheless we should be concerned about economy of presentation without being so restrictive so as to miss out on important themes or sources. As it stands, the article we now have is not too long, and the Japan issue is among the most important examples. I agree with BTP that the Falk material is important. I would also place the material from Selden very high on the list, for his role as a Japan specialist, his participation in national debates about the Enola Gay exhibit (btw this link is interesting [[25]]) and for his editing of the notable anthology "War and State Terrorism." I think more discussion of the principal themes is required so that we can come up with a more cogent presentation, which I believe is the real challenge (and not length). Incidentally, in the literature the transgression of morality is often linked to what critics believe is the progressive institutionalization of state terrorism. I am now off to re-read some of the source material shortly to see if I can come up with some ideas to economize and clarify the themes discussed.BernardL (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is more narrow to the topic and thus should allow for more depth of it, not the other way around. Those who want it deleted want the whole article deleted. Failing that they want to turn this article into a stub. It's an extension of AfD by other means, it would seem. But just like the Afd, this won't succeed thanks to WP policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? "The Debate" covers this instance of alleged state terrorism by the United States only; this article covers (in scope, though not in detail) all such instances. I don't see how this article could possibly be read as a daughter of "The Debate". (One is more specific than all, right?) I agree that the Japan example is among the most important examples, but it remains an example only. In "The Debate", it is the example. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I think it is actually the section of this article concerning Japan which should be the seat of the details about events discussed as a state terrorist act. The "debate" article itself is a compilation of arguments from multiple viewpoints, requiring balancing, weighting, and necessary concision in light of the other camps in the "debate." From the perspective of the "debate" it is natural to minimize the details of the state terrorism arguments because in the overall perspective other more mainstream arguments require the weight due to them. The section in this "terrorism" article likewise requires balancing (including for NPOV) and weighting with the other sections of this article. I still think that this is the natural place to study U.S. terrorism in the context of the atom bombings in greater detail using a a wider range of sources and themes here, while concentrating on the main arguments/debating points in the "debate" article. Reliable sources have also the studied and described the continuity of state terrorism; the threads flowing through the earlier mass civilian bombing in Europe, to over sixty Japanese cities, continuing through the nuclear attacks and onto Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. as important themes in the discourse on U.S. state terrorism. Such discussion of the dynamic evolution of state terrorist institutions using Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an important instance in an evolutionary trajectory, goes well beyond the "debate" among scholars about the nuclear bombing acts of a specific time and place.BernardL (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of just about anyone if told "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism" would be "What?". It is a fringe view at best and does not present a global view of the subject. As has been explained before here, if you want to make actions that were legitimate military actions by the standards of the time (or by this time, for that matter), you open up a very dangerous slippery slope. Perhaps the Revolutionary War should also be added? What about World War I, or the War of 1812? Where does it end? Jtrainor (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]