Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Comments on Opposing views

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have just one objection: this crazy "the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development," argument can't pass a simple universality test. Other arguments are debatable, like all in a discussion, but this is simply false. If this was really American foreign policy, then why are they so worried about democracy in Cuba and Iraq? They don't think that Cuba or Iraq are economically developed, do they? "Though this kind of policy only applies to pro-American dictators" or something of the sort should be added, for the sake of reality. --200.222.30.9 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have several objections to this section. 1) it's quite poorly written with several typos. 2) much of it isn't relevant to the subject matter. 3) it's poorly argued setting up straw-men and making spurios points e.g. No-one is attributing the 200,000 deaths in Guatemala to the US, but the US was backing regimes which carried out operations (Ronald Reagan referring to genocidal dictator Efrain Rios Montt as a 'man of great moral integrity') as was directly involved in various aspects, as meticulously detailed in the article; the argument against Chomsky using research by the democide guy (I forget his name) is massively oversimplified, morally relativistic and irrelevant to this article, which is about state terrorism not deaths attributed to governments. I suggest removal of the section. Pexise 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, though you have a couple of good points, I believe the less is deleted, and the more is added, the better. From both sides of the debate. Though, of course, arguments that insult the intelligence of even the most illiterate Latin American have to go. I'm talking about the hypocritical blabber that makes 50% Brazilians be disappointed the Iraqis didn't put up more of a fight (which is amazing, since it's not like Saddam was anything close to a good guy). Well, maybe CIA training given to military dictatorship torturers also had something to do with it. ;) --200.222.30.9 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that an opposing views section is very necessary for this page, but one which is well written and well argued, pointing to opposing views about US state terrorism. This section as it is now talks about democratic peace theory and some other vague arguments generally trying to justify US foreign policy and realpolitik, not specifically defending the US against the charge of state terrorism. But then I suppose that US state terrorism is pretty undeniable, so I suppose there are no arguments against the charges. Pexise 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yeah, it makes sense, I guess the author figured that state terrorism is so integral to American foreign policy, that you can't really talk about one without talking about the other. Also, I just noticed that, but "However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military," the source is a document of the United States government. I thought it was against Wikipedia policies' to have a group being a source to an article about itself, wasn't it? And if it is, whose opinion, besides the American government, do we have that American soldiers are discouraged to infringe Human Rights? And if it isn't, the article about Hitler doesn't mention how much he loved the German kids, this is a serious flaw! --200.222.30.9 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Japan

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

This should definitely be included in the article - there are quotes from prominent academics referring to the acts as state terrorism. Regardless of whether it was ultimately justified or not, this is an important addition to the debate. Pexise 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Japan terrorism?? American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.) [2] Giving undue weight to questionable sources to advance positions, and to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is against policy. Wikipedia policy is literally the "glue" that keeps the project together. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Junglecat, but the United States government didn't nuke Japan's military they nuked two cities full of completely defenceless civilians. The same way that they firestormed Tokio, before. So, if Japan could defend itself from an American invasion is irrelevant. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that questions of US invasion, and other issue, are not releavent to the fact that various scholars who are experts in the field label these bombings as instances of state terrorism. That is what we report here, with no undue weight, since this is an article that focuse in great deal on precisely this question, and information is presented in NPOV and with respect to the larger consensus among academia. What your doing is asserting your POV (which is disputed among experts, btw), and making a synthesis about the truth of the claim that this is state terrorism (when that claim doesn't impact those allegations). We are not allowed to do that here on WP.Giovanni33 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we must disagree. Using some fringe opinion and giving it undue weight is calling actions of a declared war as terrorism is POV pushing, as by definition it is not terrorism. Was WWII terrorism by the Axis powers then? Certainly not - it was a war. Criticism of the bombings are in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong, and it is undue weight. Synthesis to advance the bombings as terrorism is not allowed per WP:OR. Therefore, you do not have consensus to add this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the sources, of the ones I previously supplied. It is not "synthesis" since the sources call it state terrorism. I found 10 sources that use the exact term, or allege worse. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Junglecat on this. I fully support criticism of the bombings in the relevant article - Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Efforts to include this material in this article does not have consensus (as evidenced by the constant back and forth over it) and really amount to POV pushing. Dman727 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There was concensus to add at the time. If you wish to remove, seek a concensus to remove it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We've covered this ground before.Dman727 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong," uh...which definition of terrorism there is that doesn't plainly call "terrorism" nuking two cities, deliberately killing lotsa civilians, in order to achieve the political goal of making another country surrender? But even that's beside the point, various scholars, including legal scholars, think it is, and it's very well sourced, so it deserves space at wikipedia. There's even an entire article about the "Flat Earth Society", and if that isn't fringe, then I'm living in the wrong planet. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres also an article called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thats where it belongs. Dman727 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Content can be in more then once place, if anything you should have added a {{main|Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}} tag to the top, not removed the section. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article explores in detail only one part of the debate regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a novel one: the question of it being considered an act of State Terror. Note this is not a "should it have been dropped/used or not debate. Its not a pro and con. Its about scholars who are experts in the field relevant to State Terrorism , i.e. pol. sci, international relations, historians, etc, who argue that this constitutes State Terrorism. To present this information in the main article would be undue weight. Here it fits perfectly. Check the talk history. This has already been discussed and all editors (over 17 vs 1) agreed to add it. Thus, it has been added by consensus. Please do not remove unless you have consensus to do so. Thanks.Giovanni33 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you do not understand consensus on Wikipedia. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. [3] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that a "wider community concensus" does not exist to remove the material. Yourself and Dman fall a tad bit short of wide community concensus. Especially when you have not given a policy reason for the material, other then we do not like it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the article has been unlocked for less than 24 hours, I suspect that this conversation is just getting started. Btw, its more than just I and Junglecat. There are 3 others ATM, 2 of which are either banned or in the process of being banned in an arbcon for edit warring and sock puppetry and an anon. Hopefully we'll get a few more opinions on the matter. Dman727 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good then we have all agreed to wait for that concensus. See how simple that is? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We need to wait for consensus to add this new material. (signing off for a bit) Dman727 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) This has already been discussed - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a democracy [4]. Just because 17 editors like something that violates our rules, doesn't mean it remains. I don't know what else to tell you. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can tell me how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH applies when the sources directly cite the incident as state terrorism. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For a recap I will repost some of the sources found:

Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths By Ram Puniyani, Sage Publication Inc. Page 261 "This is terrorism of the mighty out to enslave the weak. This state terrorism kills the innocent non-combatants, like the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..."
Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century By Stanley Aronowitz, Basic Books. Page 92 "But the retaliatory attacks against Japan, rationalized by some, simply forgotten by others, is a useful example when one is trying to understand institutional terror." Just for the hawks: "One can say there are at least two forms of terrorism: organized and institutional (or state) terrorism."
Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World By Michael P. O'Keefe, C. A. J. Coady, Melbourne University Press. Preface XV "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."
Incoherent Empire By Michael Mann, Verso. Page 129 "Some bombing clear is state terrorism. That is the correct term for the Allied fire-boming of Dresden or Tokyo and, more arguably, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

Let me know where the OR comes in or Synth. I think tweaks can be made to the text. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a long time editor who has been watching this article for years but have not gotten involved yet. I want to say that I think it is almost comical how the small group of editors repeat the same stories, but everytime everyone proves its bull. I guess they must have really bad memories. Or, they think we forget who they are? There is no OR in this section for sure. This article is one of the best referenced in fact. This section is one of the best referenced and there are twice as many more references that could be added, even. I say we add them. I say we beef up that section with more citations. I think that is what we should do everytime they make silly claims like the above. I did not get involved before but I will restore this very section. It fits perfectly here. Thank you SevenofDiamonds for brining back some of these references. Maybe you can add some of them to the article?209.247.23.141 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, as I stated at the start of this discussion, *there are quotes from prominent academics referring to the acts as state terrorism, regardless of whether it was ultimately justified or not, this is an important addition to the debate*

You can disagree about it, but that does not mean it should not be included in the article. It is certainly neither OR nor POV pushing, it is backed up with sources, if there are sources that explicitly state that it was not state terrorism, then please add them. Pexise 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First sentence-dubious?

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Regarding: The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations,[dubious – discuss] among others.

What is dubious about this? Anyone who has studied historic American foreign policy knows this statement is entirely true. In fact, I think 'accused' should be removed because using 'accused' makes it seem like there is no proof the U.S. has funded, trained, and harbored terrorists. There are countless examples of terrorism by the U.S.; both today and in the past.

Recently, the U.S. has been supporting terrorism against Shi'ites in Iraq. Teaming with and arming the Sunni tribes in Anbar to fight al-Qa'ida, when those same U.S. supported Sunni tribes have preivously (before the tribe agreement) killed U.S. troops, and have used their U.S. issued weapons to murder some and force 15,000+ Shi‘ites to leave Anbar to go to refugee camps with no clean water or electricity. The U.S. has armed and trained the Sunni tribes, who will use terrorism even more against Shi'ites after the U.S. forces al Qa'ida out. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The contention was with the "human rights organizations" part of the sentence. east.718 at 01:59, September 13, 2007

I think that someone found a reference for two human rights organizations, no? The question was really whether it should be plural, I think. Can someone provide those references? Also, is everyone ok with the text in the above three blocks? (El Salvador, Opposing views, and Japan) 199.125.109.25 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The PPT [5] The groups listed are: Hustisya, SELDA, Desaparecidos, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan. The indictment is located here --SevenOfDiamonds 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those count. And, I included several major human rights organizations, below, in the case of state terror in El Salvador. So, that claim of being "dubious" should be removed.Giovanni33 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Gronky 11:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you're unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. - Merzbow 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with NPOV, it states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." 199.125.109.118 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador

Between 1970 and 1991 the country of El Salvador became embroiled in a civil conflict characterized by massive human rights abuses and political terror. (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.85). In their retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have attributed the great majority of the violence to the actions of government forces. (From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html, "El Salvador: 'Death Squads' -A Government Strategy," Amnesty International AMR 29/21/88,October 1988 (pp.l-6, 15-21). A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” (Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985)

The state terror took several forms. On December 11, 1981, the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed hundreds of men, women, and children in he village of El Mozote. Actions included decapitation, raping of young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles. (Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime.) Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels and their supporters. (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110). Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writers on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.” (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability, Campbell and Brenner,eds, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.86). ORDEN was a paramilitary and intelligence service “that used terror against rural civilians. Another death squad, The White Hand, committed numerous atrocities against civilians. ” (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110).

Long-time Amnesty International researcher Michael McClintock has correlated the imprint of a “White Hand on the door of potential “death squad” victims in El Salvador and Guatemala” with precedents in Vietnam, suggesting that they had access to “the same unclassified manual, through more detailed classified instructional material or through personal contact with American training personnel. (McClintock, M, American Doctrine and State Terror in Western State Terrorism, Alexander George, ed. Polity-Blackwell, 1991, p.133) In the mid-1980’s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel- “all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically. (Lopez, George A. Terrorism in Latin America in The Politics of Terrorism, Michael Stohl, ed., p.514)

U.S. foreign policy critics have charged that the U.S. is complicit in Salvadoran state terror, in part, due to the extensive training to the Salvadoran forces who were directly responsible, together with the extensive military aid that was provided--both at time when facts concerning its state terrorism were known. An additional factor has been the US role in denying the killings and human rights abuses despite the relevant facts being known and made publicly available.

Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no allegation the US committed state terrorism. An allegation of being complicit in someone else's alleged state terror is not an allegation of state terrorism on one's own behalf. - Merzbow 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article, per its lead includes: accussations of..."funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism..." The many allegations I present above, fit this exactly.Giovanni33 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to change that because that's not what the title of the article says. Right now it's being used as a dump for long laundry lists of every atrocity committed by every tin-pot dictatorship in history, interspersed with a couple lines about how somebody from the US might have trained somebody there. The Japanese bombing material is relevant; stuff like this isn't. - Merzbow 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is something that we would need consensus on to change, I think. The title is short, so it may not always explain what the article is about. That is what the lead really does. I think the scope of the article is good as it is. I believe any allegations of state terrorism (not just any atrocity, as you say), but actual claims of terror by the State, is valid--provided that its cited by reputable scholars in the field, and that the accusations implicate the US govt. I think the section can be improved to make that link even better, per BernardL, below. I won't put this in the article until consensus, though. And, thanks for agreeing that the Japan Atomic Bombings section is relevant. I think that section had overwheming consensus and I hope that its not blanked again.Giovanni33 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Atomic bombing section does not belong in this article. There is still no consensus for addition.Dman727 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good start. The structure is sound. It's a good idea to start by letting people know what kind of state terror happened, using good sources. It is the last paragraph above all that requires more substantiation. I am confident that the last paragraph can be the most compelling of all because I am quite familiar with the scholarly work that can substantiate it. I will try to flesh this part out in the next several days. Cynthia J. Arnson's Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador is a particularly rich source for substantiating links between Salvadoran death squads and the U.S. political and military establishments, as well as a revealing analysis of U.S. denials. Here is one useful excerpt...."Throughout the decade, and particularly during the years 1980-1983 when the killing was at its height, assigning responsibility for the violence and human rights abuses was a product of intense ideological polarization in the United States. The Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors. Because of the level of denial, as well as the extent of U.S. involvement with the Salvadoran military and security forces, the U.S. role in El Salvador-what was known about death squads, when it was known, and what actions the United States did or did not take to curb their abuses- becomes an important part of El Salvador's death squad story." (Cynthia J. Arnson, p.88) BernardL 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Here is another quote substantiating claims that material military aid and financial aid to the Salvadoran regime while the crimes were being committed. (Note that Cynthia J. Arnson updated the $4.6 billion figure cited here to $6 billion.) ...."Our support for the terror extends far beyond misleading and false statements by government spokesmen. The Salvador government and army survive only through a massive influx of aid from Washington, totaling $4.6 billion dollars over the past decade. U.S. military aid (by now some $1 billion dollars) is essential for keeping in power military and security forces largely responsible for the deaths of 70,000 civilians in the past ten years. The U.S. has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military , as well as training in their use." (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 5)BernardL 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since it is immediately at hand we should not forget the testimony of Frederick Gareau which was part of the previous El Salvador section...In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments.

“ As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.[1]" BernardL 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, theoretically, unless there's proof the United States was directly involved, and not just sponsored and supported terrorism they would be just accessories to terrorism, but some anti-American fellas like the CIA and Bush II think Bin Laden is responsible for the 11/9 terrorist attacks, even though he never actually stepped on those planes. So the matter is debatable. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And in case I didn't make myself clear, it's my personal understanding (and, if I'm correct, most of the world's, the CIA and Bush II were only the first experts on the matter I could think of) that Bin Laden does share the blame on those crimes, so, following the same rationale, the United States share the blame for El Salvador, due to their fundamental role in providing massive assistance to the Salvadoran government (if I recall, without American support, the terror would not happen, at least not in the scale that it did). Therefore this section does belong to the article. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you know what you're doing

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

I do hope those who are so bent on adding every last bit they can find linking the US to the world's evils know that whatever their real goal is, you're currently failing at it. If creating a neutral encyclopedia is truly your goal, then demonstrate it by balancing the material (instead of sticking in one line at the end of a 3-page section). If the goal is instead to propagandize, you're also failing at that, since anyone whose mind is undecided on the issue will immediately dismiss the article as obviously such (again due to its imbalance). I'm truly puzzled at what you're trying to accomplish here, aside from preaching to the choir. - Merzbow 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you say that. "Linking the US to the worlds evils..." No, just claims of State terrorism. That is what this article is about, and that is what must be documented in this article, if its to have any credibility. No one is talking about evil in this article. One should not want to paint anything either negatively or positively. We only report. In this case, we report on claims of State Terror perpetrated by the US govt. Our goal is just that, and nothing less. In creating a neutral encylopedia, we should cover this topic in depth. Feel free to help balance it. I'm all for that--as long as its on topic. If there is a scholar who says such and such is not state terrorism, then we can cite that here, too.Giovanni33 06:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The USA has never categorised other countries as being part of an "axis of evil", nooooo. Jackaranga 07:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what I am doing- but I seriously wonder whether you know what you're doing. Have you taken the time to make a serious reading of the most serious sources being referred to? There is a significant scholarly literature, what might be called "an alternative discourse on terrorism" but which has also been called "critical terrorism studies." For me, this page is first and foremost an account of a particular line of analysis in those rich source materials. Such work is far from finished, so do not be impatient. The page requires substantial amounts of refining and some expansion to make an accurate account of what that literature says. Making an account for an alternative discourse is well within the rubric of wikipedia. Considering an article like Dependency theory might be useful for the sake of comparison. The great majority of economists do not subscribe to this theory, in fact many (often inadequately informed) would refer to it as bunk. Yet it is a scholarly approach to economics and does have considerable influence in development economics. The pursuit here seems to me similar if not exactly the same. We are explicating an alternative discourse. Criticisms are welcome, in fact necessary but it seems they should be relevant to the subject matter which pertains to acts of state terrorism and allegations of U.S. linkage and responsibility. The best sources for criticism will be those that criticize the literature directly or at least provide direct counters to specific claims in the texts. Now about El Salvador, what would you care to say in defense of the U.S. elites implicated that would not be offensive to the numerous victims of state terror in El Salvador and their families? I would be interested to know. In closing, I would like to invite all editors to please read a good sample of the literature before assuming it is bunk. Reading the relevant material seems to me a pretty important prerequisite for editing this page.BernardL 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow has made a reasonable assessment above. Going through this "article" further with a fine toothed comb reveals all kinds of POV issues. For example, the "See also" links has a link for US Invasions, however it is a redirect to List of United States military history events. OK, so I take it that all US military events can be associated somehow as terrorist activity? The link is there, is this somehow proof that the reason it was added is that anything that the US does military wise is evil? Terrorists attack civilians who are not in war by definition, to strike fear (involves violence and the threat of violence [6]) . Chomsky's view is a fringe view at that. Just because someone in the world says something and it becomes verifiable doesn't mean we give it equal footing to mainstream views of the world. It may warrant inclusion, but not given undue weight. If the goal of this "article" is to make the United States look like the "Great Satan", then it will never have a NPOV tone based on the fact that anything and everything goes in it - or on it like a soapbox. It will be a dumping ground for POV pushing. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the links, you should remove them. If anything specific links to incidents called terrorism should only be included. I also would not call Chomskys view fringe. Also your rheotric about "evil" and "Great Satan" are ignoring the base point that scholars, many at that, call certain events terrorism, or sponsorship of it. I am sure you equally condemn the US for calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and use the same language, that the US should not make them look like the "Great Satan" etc. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links, I will try to populate a list of specific ones, or add {{main|whatever}} tags. While I feel you miss the point of the "see also" section and the links within, they are suppose to expand on sections in the article, I have removed them as a act of good faith and hopefully a starting point toward reasonable discussion. I left some sources and comments above about Japan, let me know when you get a chance what is OR or Synth. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So Giovanni and others you're saying it's my job to balance the material you add? That you should edit from one POV and me from another? WP:NPOV says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors". This is a crucial point. It's not enough that what you add is relevant to the article and sourced. It is expected of all editors that they also investigate other significant views and add them. I am seeing no effort or willingness to do so here. Case in point - the Japan section, which includes one line from the "pro" position against 3 pages from the "anti" position. - Merzbow 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. Its both our jobs. Its ever editors job to balance all content per consensus and NPOV policies. What I'm saying is that if you think something is unbalanced, then I welcome your help in suggesting specific correction. Just put on on talk, let editors discuss it and then we can incorporate it for improvement. That is all I'm saying. I did look for more sources that talk about the view that the bombings are terrorism, and the best I could find was to list the "public justifications" for the bombing, which the section does do. I also found one supporter of the bombings who discusses it on topic, i.e. state terrorism. Perhaps we can expand that angle a bit. As long as it stays on the topic of state terrorism. I can't be expected to come up with a finished product that is perfect, all alone--however good I am.:)Giovanni33 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I think you are missing the point. Please don't take this the wrong way, it is not both your jobs to make sure the editing you do is NPOV - it is your responsibility. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. It is EVERY editors responsibility. I think it's also our responsibility to work collaboratively. The work of many heads is better than one. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Many editors can give a good end result provided it is done with compliance of the encylopedia's rules, no exceptions. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement from me about that.

And here is a prime example of why this "article" will never be encyclopedia material. Someone just added in the links SevenOfDiamonds removed per the discussion. [7] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They also removed two references from the general ref section and ran together "notes" and "references" into one section. I have no idea why and probably that edit should simply be undone so I guess I'll do that. Since it's an anon editor with exactly one edit I don't think it's much cause for concern.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic. Lets give the benefit of the doubt and see what the editor says about wanting those links. Then we can come to consensus about keeping them or removing them. I'd like to see the reasons first, although, I tend to favor removal for the reasons stated above already.Giovanni33 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make a comment though I don't think I'll have enough energy to get too involved in this. I think coming to some agreement on the discussion here would be very useful for this article. The disagreement here is understandable. Editors like Giovanni, who take the view that the there have been serious and fairly persuasive accusations that the US has committed state terrorism, are obviously more conversant in sources that make those arguments and therefore more able to add material along those lines (this is pretty standard here at Wikipedia--usually editors know more about sources that express their point of view, as said sources have helped form that POV in the first place). Editors such as Merzbow and Jungle Cat, who question many of the arguments (and their sources) about US state terrorism and/or the very existence of this article, are understandably most interested in preventing material which they view as being highly POV from being added into the article. Neither group is particularly wrong, and by actually working together I think a fairly NPOV article could be produced.

The problem is that the majority (though not all) of the debate was been about material that accuses the US of committing state terrorism--neither group of editors (and I obviously use the term "group" very roughly) has spent as much time dealing with sources that argue against the state terrorism allegations. Quite frankly most of the material I have seen in the past which argued against the terror allegations came from extremely weak sources, when extremely strong sources for this viewpoint exist as most scholars do not take the view that the US has committed state terror. Skeptics of that position need not say "the US has not committed state terror" or "Chomsky was wrong when he talked about state terror." Rather, in my opinion, they only have to question key facts of the opposing view or characterize the reality of a given situation in a completely different manner, even if they do not mention state terrorism. So, with Japan for example, if we cited material which pointed out that most/many US historians/political scientists believe that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good and necessary decision (and many if not most scholars think that--certainly at least the "necessary" part), that would obviously seriously call into question the idea that it was "state terrorism." Obviously there are other ways (and it would different from "allegation" to allegation) to argue against the arguments of Chomsky et. al.)

What I would propose is this. The next thing that should be worked on--by all interested editors--is writing a good "skeptical of state terrorism" argument for one of the sections. The Japan one might be good since it is fresh, or another if that does not work. A few editors from "both sides" would look for the best sources possible that refute/argue against the "this was state terrorism" arguments. After adding this material into the article perhaps some of the this-is-state-terrorism arguments would be trimmed down a bit if they were violating undue weight provisions. Assuming this exercise was successful, the same techniques could be applied to other sections of the article. I would also propose that, as a general rule, new sections accusing the US of state terrorism be placed on the talk page first (which already seems to have been happening) and that they not be moved into the article until significant opposing views had been added. This would vastly cut down on revert wars, and if we were going to work on trying to balance the Japan section it might be a good-faith move on the part of those who added it to remove it back to talk for awhile so it can be worked on.

I think there actually is general agreement that NPOV is everyone's responsibility from the editors above. Given that the arguments of skeptics are not as well represented as they should be, I think it would be useful for the editors who have been working constructively on this article to spend some time on that together. I can try to help with some sources if folks feel this is a good idea.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I almost completely agree, except for one point. Necessary does not denote the act was terrorism, it could have been a necessary act of terrorism ... --SevenOfDiamonds 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but my point is that if we find scholars that view the bombing of Japan as a necessary and good decision (or something along those lines), this certainly provides a counter view to the idea that it was state terrorism, without even mentioning that idea. Obviously we want those views expressed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the scope of discussion limited to the topic of terrorism---of course all POV's. I found one qualified writer who believes it was a justified terrorism, and argues that sometimes terrorism is justified (which I thought it was important to include even though his view is a minority one). But, saying its terrorism does not preclude those who think its good, instead of bad. For example on the question of torture-- as there are scholars who argue that torture is sometimes justified. We can expand on this pov as its on topic. But, I don't want to expand it to the debate over the use of the bomb itself, as that really is another topic. This would include arguments about the alleged necessity, or lack thereof, or views about it being a good decision, or bad decision. These are all off topic and belong on the other article. I do think mentioning the official public justifications should be stated, though (as they are). This is not to get into the pro/con's but simply to place it in context. The section should line to the two main articles that talk about the other subjects not directly related the question of this being an example of state terrorism.Giovanni33 04:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am in basic agreement with Giovanni. I think the pertinent question is...does it constitute an act of state terrorism? Several authors are sourced to say that it does constitute such an act, for a balancing pov we should be looking for sources that refute the notion that it can be be considered a terrorist act- perhaps they might construe it as an act of war only. Nevertheless such a source should at least demonstrate consideration of whether or not it should be considered a terrorist act. BernardL 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point both of you are making, and fully agree that the best oppose sources are those that deal directly with the charges of state terrorism. The simple fact is that such sources may not always be available or even in existence, and in such situations I think it is appropriate to present views which, while perhaps not addressing the issue of state terrorism directly, clearly characterize whatever happened in situation X as something other than state terrorism. I don't at all want those views to overwhelm the article, since the focus is on allegations of US state terrorism, but I do think that something akin to a "this was not state terrorism" argument should be expressed in basically every section, because the simple fact is that this will be a significant viewpoint for most or all of the sections of the article. We just might have to be a bit creative about how we represent those views, and the approach would probably differ from section to section.

Aside from that--which can be discussed further--I would still hope that a few editors might agree to the approach I mentioned above, whereby some time is put in to craft a better-sourced "oppose" argument for a given section. Seven of Diamonds seems to have agreed that this would be a decent idea, but I'm not sure how others feel about it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For example in the case of El Salvador it could be mentioned that U.S. foreign policy perceptions were such that leftist guerrilla factions were believed to be committing terrorist acts and undermining order in the country. The guerrillas were believed to be supported by the Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Soviets, and that if El Salvador was lost to such forces, it was feared that communism would overrun the region. (Note- This is despite the fact that truth commissions have found that leftist guerrillas were only responsible for 5% of the political violence, while the figures for the government and paramilitary death squads with strong links to the government are 85% and 10& respectively. The victims of government forces were not just guerrillas, but priests, nuns, teachers, union organizers; a pretty wide selection of the population, in fact. When human rights organizations like AI and human rights watch criticized El Salvador for the crimes as they were happening U.S. administrators criticized the human rights organizations.) Is something like that what you have in mind as a balancing device?BernardL 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think those are perfectly valid ways of npov balancing. We tell the POV/side of those actors who are accused of being complicit in state terrorism, i.e. the public justifications. Of course, we should report on the response to those claims, as you have done. This gives all relevant parties a voice, but still keeps it accurate and on topic.Giovanni33 19:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Please add a sentence about that, and put excellent additions for El Salvador into the article. Those are good, referenced additions. Also, the Phillipines section should be restored. That was another section that should not have been removed.209.247.23.141 02:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To Bernard above, yes the example you give for El Salvador is along the lines of what I was thinking. The nature of the "oppose" material might be different for each section, but I think a lot of the time we will have to cite the U.S government and it's explanation of/justification for its actions. Citing scholars who contest the notion that a given action is state terrorism would obviously be the best, but citing governmental officials with an opposing view is better than nothing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring !

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, can you all try to agree first, instead of edit warring on this article, or it will be fully protected again like before, = everyone looses. Jackaranga 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the theorys on this page are really way out there. How to resolve such a conflict when people clearly have an agenda by inserting such crackpot material, and then when its removed its called edit warring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timespade (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. Personal opinions are not the way WP works. We report what valid sources say, that is relevant to the topic of the article. If this is not the case, please explain that. Also, there is a 3RR rule, and you have violated that with 4 reverts under 24 hours, which is a blockable offense. Please discuss here before making any more reversions. Thanks.Giovanni33 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User's first edits are to a semi-protected page = sleeper. Though I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue with those acting in good faith, the sources seem to support the assertions and the paragraphs in question are worded neutrally. Timespade, if you really are trying to contribute maybe you could outline for those with more experience on this article the problems you perceive in the sources or the material. Milto LOL pia 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those edit warring IP's should just be blocked so the real culprit behind those IP's gets blocked. They are using them in abusive manners. That sleeper as obviously not a new user since his first act was to revert.209.247.23.141 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead citations

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do we really need 8 inline citations in the lead to say The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others ? Notice that that sentence doesn't substantiate the accusation, only states that it exists. I'm thinking four citations verify should suffice. Milto LOL pia 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just combined the references, it's not like any of them were being cited twice... it should be less of an eyesore now. east.718 at 12:09, September 24, 2007

Unfortunately, a few months ago a group of editors failed to get the article deleted in an AFD so they insisted on as many references as possible. We had to comply as they were deleting sections that only had a handful of RS refs and were avoiding 3RR because there were enough of them to take turns reverting. Wayne 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A different approach is needed here

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This topic is clearly too hot and I see it drawing a lot of people in. I want to suggest:

having exactly two paragraphs for each event, for pro (it was terrorism) and con (no it wasn't);
- voluntary restriction to only one of each of the two paragraphs per issue -- if you edit the "pro" paragraph then don't touch the "con" paragraph and vice-versa;
using only peer-reviewed sources, nothing else; and
stating each assertion in terms of "Author(s) says ______."

Is that too restrictive? ←Ben^B4 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess, for instance, I don't know if the argument for Japan can be presented in only two paragraphs, and not everyone that knows one side of the argument knows the other (some just don't have a con side, like Nicaragua). The problem with this page isn't the high number of people attracted, it's the editors that don't accept other people views and prefer to delete instead of adding, it's the overwhelming authoritarianism and disregard for other people and Wikipedia shown by editors that are just trying to get this page protected again by engaging in pointless edit wars without even discussing the changes they want in the talk page. I gave up on this one already. The English Wikipedia has too high a conservative, pro-American and anti-worldist tilt to be overcome, and I'm simply not stubborn enough. --200.222.30.9 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but just because it is a "hot" topic does not justify erecting artificial and arbitrary standards. The approach that wikipedia policies promote should be consistent for all wikipedia articles, and for that matter for all wikipedia editors (take note, Merzbow, apply your prescriptions to yourself, Ultramarine,Mongo,etc. too) . The imposition, ad hoc, of the kind of exceptional editing practices suggested necessarily requires the deliberation and consent of the entire wikipedia community. And why exactly is it considered an issue that is too "hot"? - because it offends American patriotism? Moreover, in terms of some subjects, including many discussed here, academic "peer-reviewed" literature has little or no credibility. For the most part,mainstream academic "peer-reviewed" journals and mainstream media outlets totally dropped the ball on massive repressive violence in Latin America and elsewhere, were very slow in acknowledging such repression. Their moral credibility pales in comparison to human rights activists and dissident scholars who raised consciousness about the crimes as they were happening.BernardL

I mean it's hot because there's too much reverting without discussion, for one thing. Plus there seems to be no attempt to soften the concerns raised in the Articleissues box. Eh, I tried. ←Ben^B4 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that those guidelines would be a bit too restrictive, though I do agree with the spirit of the proposal. I think editors on this article need to agree to some ad-hoc ground rules and/or try to collaborate with one another on small aspects of this article as a way to work on getting to consensus on various issues (see my proposal in the section above). I actually think it would be better if people worked on both the pro and the con paragraphs (the fact that this is not happening seems a real problem) and I think the paragraph restrictions and the peer-reviewed restrictions are simply not workable right now. I think most of the "this is state terrorism" arguments are for the most part stated in a "this author says ____" fashion and that it's probably good to continue in that vein.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the time is nigh for a review of that articleissues box. Just because it is there one should not assume that the points it raises are true, or that the box is there for constructive purposes. It contains 4 points, the last 3 of which I find questionable. If I am correct it was Ultramarine who added this box and he did not point specifically to those arguments which he found contentious, especially according to the final three points. No one since has pointed to where these problems may be- so it seems that the articlebox is there as a kind of vulgar grafitti and those who might have objections are not engaging in constructive action to rectify the problems on this talk page. Points 3 and 4 refer to the use of sources, and charges of inappropriate or misinterpreted citations of texts. I have my doubts about these charges since the critics of this article do not evidence having read the sources to which it refers. But if such cases exist they should be brought to our attention soon. Otherwise there will be justification for trimming the articleissues box down to 1 or 2 points (soon). BernardL 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree.Giovanni33 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Opposing views section largely consists of OR, unsubstatiated claims with no citations for arguments put forth and material which is not relevant to the article. This section should be improved, re-written or removed in order to resolve the problems in the article issue box. Pexise 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, come to think of it, that is the only section in the article where that issues box pertains to. I propose we move that issues box as the head of the section, while it remains in that very poor state. No reason the rest of the article needs to be branded due to it.Giovanni33 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that. I don't expect it to last, but in the absence of credible OR/SYNTH allegations in other sections, it should. ←Ben^B4 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous word order

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" - what's by the US? The allegations or the terrorism?

...I can't think of an unambiguous word order right now, so I'll leave that to yous. --Gronky 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be "State Terrorism by the United States." That many of these are allegations is made clear by the sections in the body of the article. Some, though, are beyong mere allegation to established fact. Hence the title should be always be made as clear as possible. This was a long debate and resulted in title move wars.Giovanni33 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Allegations of state terrorism against the United States? east.718 at 01:02, September 26, 2007

Not bad. That might be an improvement in terms of clarifying the meaning.Giovanni33 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism against the United States is clearly superior to the current title. Would anyone object if I (or anyone else) changed the name? Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do move it, please check and update all the double redirects that may popup. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Against the move, folks would likely misconstrue it to mean that the Iranian or North Korean states are committing terrorist attacks against the U.S. Presently I am leaning towards either Allegations of United States Responsibility for State Terrorism, or State terrorism by the United States.BernardL 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go with the second one titled "State terrorism by the United States", the whole article will need to be cleaned up. This includes the removal of the Japan section since it is a fringe view. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually its not fringe. If you review the literature its widespread and common view within those who study the field of political violence, and state terrorism. I don't think the article needs to change with a title change like that. Its still all about state terrorism by the US--allegations and all.Giovanni33 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked you above to explain this view, you still have no responded, please do so. I listed a few sources for you not including the ones already included. I can list more but I decided to only go with ones that had the words state terrorism and Hiroshima in close proximity for quoting purposes. Please respond above under the quotes sources if anything. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) BernardL brings up a good point... Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States is another possibility. east.718 at 02:40, September 26, 2007

East718's suggestion is the best in my opinion, though it makes for an even more unwieldy title. I'm hoping someone comes up with a silver bullet for the article title, as none of the options we have thought of up until now are that great. I don't have any big ideas right now unfortunately.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be my second option, so far (my first preference isn't likely to gain consensus anytime soon. :)Giovanni33 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States is the best title suggested so far. It clears up any ambiguity in the title. If anyone objects to that title, please speak up (and don't suggest removing allegations, because, as Giovanni33 suggested, there is no consensus for such a change) Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That would also be my second choice, after State terrorism by the United States. ←Ben^B4 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the more uncontroversial this move is. I'm going to go ahead and move the page. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputes

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I couldn't help but think of this page when I read the following comic: http://meninhats.com/d/20041006.html – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, thanks a lot. I have given up on this page. The people are new, but the arguments are ALL the same.

Whats new is the page protections. I like how the page is now protected for long periods of time. I think they should protect it indefinetly, except for an editor to add a quarterly AfD.

My suggestion to change the name (and stop a lot of the controversy) went so badly a couple of months ago I am seriously considering voting "delete" next quarterly AfD. Travb (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire! This page has improved considerably thanks to the work of several diligent and serious editors. The sourcing, in particular, has improved immeasurably and now points to a significant scholarly literature on the topic. The edit warring and protection stems primarily from right-wing editors playing an exclusively destructive role, simply deleting the sourced material and not offering constructive ideas for resolution in talk. Lately, the destructive tactics are even more evident as most of the edit warring has been initiated and maintained by anonymous editors. All of this evidence will be taken to any future Afd discussion, as well the fact that there have already been several failed attempts to delete the article. Personally, I think it is time for certain editors to grow up and either edit in a wikipedia spirit, or leave the article alone.BernardL 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A small suggestion

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is a subject that draws A LOT of controversy. Another topic is Evolution. You may want to create a FAQ similar to what they did to state the guidelines and what has been discussed and what has been determined. It brings people up to speed more and helps reduce the edit warring a bit. Now I know this is not a scientific topic but it couldn't hurt. Spryde 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading over the FAQ page I think that would be a great idea. It is an annoying task to have to post the same sources on every page when the next person to appear wants to shout about WP:OR or whatever acronym they choose. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, science changes less often than consensus does around here. :)

I would use any FAQ created to bring up each of the sections that have been committed and the sources and reasoning involved why it is there. Spryde 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on material to add to the El Salvador section

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Just put in a page break if you want to keep it. 199.125.109.25 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)