Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

"United States protectorate"

"The Philippines has been considered a United States protectorate and/or colony since the late 1890s, playing a central role in the U.S. Navy's global strategic presence.[1]" Dubious minority pov presented as truth. No mention of state terrorism. Objections to deletion and if so why? Ultramarine (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance to this text. Minority POV or not, I can't see it adds anything to this article. Which is to say, I too would like to see why anyone would object to its deletion. Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement is provided as demonstration that the U.S. has a long, direct involvement with the highest levels of Philippine government; since these facts are referenced without sourcing by later articles (i.e. -- the ones which associate the U.S. State with terrorism in the Philippines), it is necessary to show the reader that the fact of this patronage is widely acknolwedged and uncontroversial. Otherwise, people like yourself might come on to the page and claim that "What the Philippine Government does has nothing to do with what the U.S. Government does". In reality, such a statement is easily proven false; this statement does that, and so it is provided here, at the outset, as demonstration that the assertions made in the sources which follow are all factually based. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OR to claim connection to state terrorism when sources does not. Furthermore, not a notable source. Even more, source does not mention "colony" or "protectorate ".Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor does it mention the 1890s, nor even the Navy. This reference does not appear to lend any support to the sentence it is attached to. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All of that is trivial historical information. Sources have already been provided. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Source is an official study commissioned by the EC reviewing the effects of EC aid. It clearly mentions the Navy. You are simply not reading very carefully. The source isn't provided to support any claims about terrorism; only that the Philippines are widely known as integral to the U.S. military's global strategy. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at and searched the text. The word "colony", "protectorate", and "1890s" does not exist. The source is a Campaigns and Media Officer working at BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development). Not EU.Ultramarine (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it mentions Navy at all, it does not do so explicitly nor clearly: Are "US forces" necessarily the navy? Does this one hard-to-find sentence, merely stating as fact, and not arguing its case, really constitute support for the claim? And is this claim even relevant to the article? If this "involvement" is referenced later, provide a source for it there! — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. All of these are explicitly false statements -- well, you're right that the name of the org. is BOND, but that's as far as it goes. I will simply presume that you are having trouble reading carefully.

The information is all there. It is as i have described it. If you would like to show us evidence of where i am wrong, feel free. But as of yet, you have provided no sources to back up your position. Until you do, your objections are irrelevant. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See the source: [2] Anyone can see that there is no mention of "colony", "protectorate", and "1890s" and no clear mention of Navy. See this, it is not the EU: [3].Ultramarine (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have added some new links. None of the these state that the Philippines is currently a colony or protectorate. Nor do they mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All i can say is that you are looking in all the wrong places. The sources all back up the content of the statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at them. None state state that the Philippines is currently a colony or protectorate. Nor do they mention state terrorism. If they do, then give a quote please.Ultramarine (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to me to do your reading for you. I have verified that they all support the statement made. If you wish to contest it then you'll need to discuss it with someone who isn't me, because i've already indicated that your attempts to quote from the sources provided appear to be quite selective about what is and isn't there (i.e. -- your arguments have no content, therefore you are now pretending as if the clear and unambiguous statements provided in those sources aren't really there). The BOND project clearly states its affiliation with the EU and EC. The sources on the current page all clearly discuss the Philippines as U.S. colony, protectorate, and military base. You yourself have acknowledged that about the BOND document, except that you claim it's "not obvious enough", or some sort of claptrap. Whatever. It seems obvious to me, and since we both agree that it's there then that's the end of the impasse. The source stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is still not valid. Some of the sources state that the Philippines earlier was a colony/protectorate, which probably no one disputes, but do not state that is true today. State terrorism is not mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There were no ad hominem attacks in that post. This State Terrorism straw-man has already been addressed and demolished above, by WheezyF. If you are interested in continuing that line of argument i suggest that you take it up with him; seeing as he has effectively destroyed any credibility you might have had on this subject i see no reason to expend further energy on the same logic here. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must follow policy. Keeping factually incorrect statements is not allowed. Regarding state terrorism, see the section above.Ultramarine (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing factually incorrect about the statement. Your arguments regarding inclusion of the phrase "State Terrorism" have been shown to be patently ridiculous and inapplicable, and in the process serious questions were raised about your ability to "assume good faith" and tendentious editing practices. I will not argue them further. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, sources do not claim that the Philippines is a protectorate or a colony today. More ad hominem. Regarding state terrorism see section above.Ultramarine (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again: they do. You are wrong. This appears to be yet one more ploy where you simply refuse to acknowledge readily available facts, just as you did above. Finally, your assertions about the use of the phrase "state terrorism" have been demolished. You appear increasingly combative and tendentious in your challenges -- all of which are clearly pushing a particular political POV -- and many people here are suspicious that you are in serious breach of WP:AGF. Please abide by Wikipedia guidelines and work with the editors on this page in a cooperative and mutually respectful manner. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then give a quote please. Please discuss the factual issues. I have been respectful You have today called me liar.Ultramarine (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your line of argument has been repeatedly shown to be inapplicable. As of right now, i have no idea what you're talking about. Moreover, someone has already deleted the sources in question. I will move to restore them and then we can continue this discussion. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must be factually correct. Again, none of the sources state that Philippines is currently a United States protectorate and/or colony.Ultramarine (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this passage twice now, on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the article. No one seems to want to defend is relevance. The only reason I've been given for this passage's existence is that 'Otherwise, people like yourself might come on to the page and claim that "What the Philippine Government does has nothing to do with what the U.S. Government does".' Which at best establishes that the passage serves a meta-strategical purpose. A purpose to the process, not to the article. If it serves any good purpose to the article, state it, and I'll either accept it or suggest alternative ways of attaining that purpose.

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Dudes

This page was peaceful and cool until Ultramarine showed up. Then all this hard STUFF started. What's up, dude? You aren't getting your way so you start deleting stuff? DUDE! WAKE UP!! This is the way the world thinks! If you want to change the page then play bey the rules! Ultrastoopid (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added many supporting sources and information. Please explain your revert in the section below.Ultramarine (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Opposing views"

I have added many sources to the so called "opposing views" section to make it less of a straw man: [4]. State any objections with explanations please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On first review it looks like a much needed improvement to the section. Thank you! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I been watchin this page for, like 5 months now, and I seen a whole big heap uv peeps talkin and sayin they want to see the edits on the page before anyone goes changin stuff around. and then this Dude Ultramarine skips in and sez he wants to start changin things around and suddenly everyone here starts runnin away and pretendin like they never noticed that he doesn't ever listen to anything anyone else sez. I mean -- DUDE!! What's up with all this? Ultramarine -- dude -- IF you want the peeps here to take you seriously then u got to start talkin with them about what u want to do. YOU just come in and start talking STUFF about all the stuff u want to change but when the peeps give back ur own words u start cryin and rolin about how they r dissin u. YOU are the one who is makin all this trubble (and yah, I KNOW I spelled that wrong, get over it!). YOU come on and start talkin STUFF about how u don't agree with everyone here and all and when they ask you how u just say "DELETE MORE!" But when they ask u what u got problems u say STUFF like "Wikipedia rule A" or "Wikipedia rule B" and then when they show u those rules don't fly u just say it again!

Dude! What is UP? UntimelyMaroon (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there concensus that the reverts done by UntimelyMaroon/Ultrastoopid constitute vandalism? I do not want to be violating 3RR by undoing the reversion the IP account just did. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the obvious dubious nature of those accounts their actual reverts were fine with me as they were reverting material introduced by Ultramarine, which is problematic and without consensus. If you could undo your revert and restore the status quo version of before, while discussion continues, it would be best for the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not blanket revert from a sourced version of the section to a completely unsourced version simply because the edits were not added per the general working agreements of this page. At this time if there are concerns about the sources, SYN, OR or NPOV, they must be made about the specific sources / statements that have been included the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

tags again?

I understand the NPOV tag, but why is the entire again being tagged for original research, unverifiable claims, unpublished synthesis, ideas not verifiable with the given sources, and inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text--yet again? Editors have asked that if any of the above claims have any veracity to them, to please point out the text in question so that it can be looked at and fixed. No one has been able to do that, other than makes these silly claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, I suggest we do not tolerate all these absurd tags defacing this article until such time that they are substantiated. Please consider removing these tags until then. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the concensus reached on Jan 14/15 I moved the tags back to the section in question. Any move of the tags to the article overall should be done with specific concerns noted on the talk page so they can be addressed. With the recent re-write of the Criticism section, I removed some of the tags that did not seem to belong. Any addition of tags to that section should include reasons on the talk page so that they can be addressed. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, most of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:OR by making claims of terrorism and state terrorism when the cited sources do not.Ultramarine (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. The others here have showed you that you made a bad interpreting of the wikipedia directives. You must not, like this, keep up the conflit. There are other ways to you to signal your ideas. But this is not the correcte way. Thecryptthing (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Thecryptthing! I wouldn't say "bad". Interpretation is necessary; without interpretation, all we have is zeroes and ones. And to attach any semblence of meaning to them, ASCII does not suffice. This may be an interpretation that is not in line with that of most editors. Or not. It is not easy for me to say, as long as both "sides" speak in generics, about the entire article, about the policies and guidelines applying to it, and about the editors working on it. That, at least, is not the correct way. Work with the text instead, present tight arguments for or against specific conflicted passages, and we might just get somewhere. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is not the interpretation. It is the logique. You are say the logique is synthesiste. But the points you gesture to they do not make synthesis. They are part of the logique. All the points are repeted by the articles. This is not synthesiste. This is logical repetition. Thecryptthing (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's exactly what WP:SYN is referring to: There should be no logic in the article that is not also in the sources. If the sources synthesise something, that's great. If the article synthesises something, that's a WP:SYN violation: If the article makes an argument, we need to find a single source for that argument. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my english is not good. So maybe I should say it is repetition of the logique? Is that good? Do you understand? You mean there must not have interpretation. But there is not interpretation. There is only repetition. You say that there is synthesisme, but there is not. The other editors put no logique in the article, they only repeate the logique of the articles. I do not think you can show me what synthesisme you are talking about but if you can then please show it for me. Thecryptthing (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of the argument made in a source is good. If a source gives the argument, WP:SYN does not apply; that's the kind of source we need. And I have not (yet) made any allegations of WP:SYN violations in this article, and I (still) hope I won't. I'd like to discuss the various passages of the article with respect to what purpose they serve, before I even start thinking of what policies and guidelines they may violate. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly thinks there is a place for such criticisms in Wikipedia. Thus, this material could be moved to an article called "Criticisms of the United States foreign policy" or something similar. This would solve the problem. Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'm sure much of this material could find its way into other existing articles. I would not rule out a new article. But neither would I rule out that much of the material you contest belongs in this article. It could well be both relevant and notable, but it really is hard to tell from the mess in which it is presented. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will assume that whenever some (non-vandalism) material has been added to this article, it is because the editor thought it relevant to the article. If I cannot figure out what makes this relevant, my first line of action is to ask. If that succeeds, I'll try to present it better. If the first line fails though, the second line is delete: If anyone thinks it belongs in another article, let them take it there. In this article though, it's at best noise. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look for example at the very long Philippines section. I see only one source, the so called "People's Tribunal", accusing the US of state terrorism. All of the rest is just a WP:SYN violation. Many of the links do not even mention the United States at all and thus do cannot blame the US of anything.Ultramarine (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I found five state terror's. 118.165.219.150 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most don't blame the US, no. All they can do, is provide a source for background info. Is this the purpose they serve? To the extent they do, it should be clarified in the article. To the extent they don't, they don't belong here, WP:SYN violation or not. But let's tackle them one at a time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bring up on of the more strange examples. There is a very long section on Sister Dianna Ortiz's rape charges. The only connection with the US is that she states is that she met a person called "Alejandro" who spoke American English. How is this state terrorism by the United States? Say a woman was raped in West Germany who also received US aid and were some officers have taken some courses in the US. It that also US state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He also worked at the American embassy and was the leader of the torturers. 118.165.219.150 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be other connections with the US: "Professor Gareau argues that the School of the Americas, a U.S. Army institution where Gramajo-Morales trained as a young officer and taught in later life, is a terrorist training ground." Of course, the connection between Sister Dianna Ortiz and Gramajo-Morales is not made clear in the article text, and the so-called "short excerpt" (which should at least use a quoting template, if included at all, rather than just sourced) does not beyond the rather anonymous "Alejandro" even name him, for crying out loud ... suggestions for clarification? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The connection is very easy to see. Gramajo-Morales was named as a defendant in the nun's case. It says that in the article. Did you read the same thing I did? Because it is very easy to see. Thecryptthing (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was named as a defendant ... apparently for making "several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." Making statements?! That's all the article text states. Anything else must be lured out of the nauseating wall of blockquote text. That's anything but clear. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. The case was against the government. Gramajo-Morales was a government representatif. He is one of the defendants, it is because he was cover up the torture and terror. That is easy to see. Thecryptthing (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I was left with the impression that "Alejandro" was Gramajo-Morales. He is not, then? All the more reason to remove the blockquote then, isn't it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See? Something simple but you do not understand. Even my poor english I can see the Alejandro and Gramajo-Morales are not the same. ^_^ If you do not understand then why do you say it must change? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why must it change? Precisely because I don't understand it. It is unclear, and it makes the rest of the article less accessible, by distraction if nothing else. It detracts from the point made, and from the entire article. And if it really isn't intended, it is horribly misleading: The general's full name is given as "Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales"; the full name of the "Alejandro" of the block quote is not given! Anyone could come from that with the impression that "Alejandro" and Gramajo-Morales were one and the same. If that is not intended, it's horribly poor writing.  :-( — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is clear. I have poor english writing. My reading is better, but still not my language maternelle. Thus my poor english but I even understand! The nun tells me how she suffered and how a man who lead the torturers was an americain and she put the commandant of the men in the legal proces. Another source say some torturers are from amiericain CIA and the commandant of the men took money from them. The legal proces say he cover it so no one know. That is clear, no? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as I just stated, what appears in the article not clear. But rather than trying to clarify it directly to me, why don't you suggest a clarifying rewrite of the article itself? Preferably in a new section (hit the "+"), since we're no longer discussing tags. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not me who want change. It is you. To re-write is your responsibilite. And my english is not so good. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anyone accusing Gramajo-Morales of participating in the rape. That he took a course in the US and later was a minister does not mean that the US have done state terrorism. If arguing that, then a very large proportion of rapes in for example NATO nations would be US state terrorism. Unless sourced link between claiming US state terrorism, then the passage should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See? This is an point artificiele. There are articles to say that Gramajo-Morales was CIA and that he helped to torture. Gramajo-Morales was in the Sister Ortiz case as a defendant because he have responsable for the forces-securite. And the Gramajo-Morales was with the CIA agentes who tortured. That is all in the articles. One nun says that Gramajo-Morales is responsable, and one journaliste says he is responsable, and one say the CIA gives him money to torture, and one says that he was commander of the forces who tortured. That is all easy to see, no? Thecryptthing (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are violating WP:SYN. Your arguments seems to be A. Sister Ortiz charged Gramajo-Morales because was minister of defence and "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." B. Other source accuse Gramajo-Morales of being a CIA asset and various atrocities. A + B does not mean that Sister Ortiz accused Gramajo-Morales of state terrorism. She does not accuse the US of anything. The rape case is not linked to state terrorism. Anyone could have raped. Even if Gramajo-Morales ordered her to be raped, that does not mean that the US ordered this in turn.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. I make no argument. I only repeat what the articles say. One article say he is commandant over those torturers and americains men who work together. Sister Ortiz say also he is commander of the torturers and there is americains who work together. See? Same same. Thecryptthing (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no source stating that he raped or ordered the rape or that the US ordered this. Where does Sister Ortiz say "that he is commander of the torturers and that there is americains who work together"? She accuses him of something else, that he "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted.".Ultramarine (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Ortiz says he is the commandant and he knows and cover up the torture in her proces. That is very clear. You again make an point artificiele. And she say very clear that Alejandro is americain and Alejandro say he has "friend" in the Embassy and he take her there. You can not believe or you can believe, but it is true she say it. Thecryptthing (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Source please where he says "he is the commandant and he knows and cover up the torture in her proces". She does not accuse him raping her or ordering the rape or that the US is in any way involved.Ultramarine (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel (i.e. men who would have been under Gramajo's command) and taken to a secret prison where she was tortured and raped repeatedly. See? She say Gramajo-Morales is commandant and she is tortured by men under him and make the proces because he cover it up and say nothing happen. He say she injuries just "self-inflicted" but she raped and beaten? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel" comes from dubious source that does not quote her. In the direct quote she does not state this. And how could she know who they are? Even if they were officers, that does not mean Gramajo-Morales ordered this. Most rapes are not ordered. Even if Gramajo-Morales ordered the rape, this does not mean that the US ordered the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article doesn't claim that the US ordered the rape. Concentrate on the article, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is this "state terrorism" by the United States? Ultramarine (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "this" that you speak of? How is what state terrorism by the United States? Concentrate on the article, and point me to the problem. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The rape. No one has accused the US of being behind it, so it cannot be state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article do we say that the rape is state terrorism by the US? I cannot see it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the rape mentioned then? Ultramarine (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Better question. I have (as yet) no answer. Suggestions? — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These are points artificiele. "Dbuious"? I look at the sources. One is a report from "Inter-Am.C.H.R." and they are appropriate for the police and personnel. See, they are here Inter-American_Commission_on_Human_Rights. The other I did not find, so I recherche google and I found it here. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/justice/law_background_torture.html It says what I say, not what you say. You say these things are synthesisme, but they are not. Now you say they do not say but they do. The US pay the commandant. The commandant was guilte under the US law. That is what is said. You may believe, you may not believe, but that is what is said. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the PBS article stating that the US was responsible for the rape or that the US paid Gramajo-Morales.Ultramarine (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! You play with me, no? The article is not say the US responsable, it say the Sister "brought a civil court case" and that it made a big "controversy". It was not used to say US responsible for Gramajo. The other articles say that. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not state the he was responsible for the rape. Even if he was, then you violate WP:SYN. No evidence has been presented that the US ordered or was responsible for this particular rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. The particulars of victims of State Terrorism and torture as Sister Ortiz is, are legitimate for inclusion here because the sources state the US was deeply involved in supporting that countries state terrorism. Thus, accounts of the victims of that state terrorism are fair play for inclusion. There is no SYN claim being made here. You are the only editor who claims that misunderstanding of policy. I've removed the SYN tag, too, per consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

None of your sources claims that the US was responsible for the rape. No state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, and straw man fallacy. Repeating yourself like a broken record is not helpful. You have no consensus to remove this long term section. You are the only editor making these fallacious arguments. Please stop removing content against consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be accurate. Implying state terrorism when the source does not is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{quote}}

I propose to replace each instance of {{Cquote}} and <blockquote> with {{quote}}.

{{Cquote}}, per its own docs, should not be used for block quotes in article text. {{quote}}, on the other hand, "is easier to type and more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote> tags, has additional pre-formatted attribution and source parameters, and contains a workaround for Bugzilla:6200, which means you don't need to type <p> tags manually."

Being consistent, both within the article and with the recommendations of WP:MOSQUOTE, will make the article more accessible, and may even make it easier to maintain.

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to meTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started. So far, just the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#Quotes section, which is a convenient show case for this change. Unless there are any objections, I'll continue through the rest of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and I've converted Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#The_Philippines. These were not as well attributed as the "Quotes" section, so someone should perhaps check that I haven't misattributed anything while converting to {{quote}} attribution. Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and now also Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#Japan. When converting the attribution here, I found that the rest of the section was left ambiguous, which I resolved by also rewroting an inline quote to the {{quote}} format. This quote is rather short for this treatment though, so if anyone would like to fix the ambiguity while still using an inline quote for this, please do. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see User:Giovanni33 has attempted fixing this[5], but doesn't that fix leave it unclear that the second quote is from the book, and not from the article? Or am I seeing problems that aren't there? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#El_Salvador. I assume "Frederick Garneau", the professor, is the same as "Frederick H. Gareau", the author, but I don't know which way to spell his last name. Anyone? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There goes the Guatemala section. The only surprise I noted was that there was no wikipedia article on speaktruth.org. :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And there it is complete. I think.  :-\

The last few batches required more rewriting to get the right attribution format than the first did, so you may want to review. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"journal = Reuters"

The source http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0903-01.htm is referenced with the {{cite journal}} template, with the journal name of "Reuters". Now, to the best of my knowledge, Reuters is not a journal.  :)

CommonDreams is not a journal either, it seems, so I don't think this is a matter of replacing CommonDreams for Reuters.

I propose instead to change this to {{cite news}}, as that seems more correct. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I see User:Silly rabbit just did this. But I don't think that is quite correct: The publisher should be CommonDreams, while the author should be Reuters (or "Reuters staff"?). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Reuters publishes www.commondreams.org. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant to bring up a similar issue, but got distracted. Reuters is the publisher, since they published the article originally (read the fine print over at the commondreams site). Ideally the article should provide an archive link (see archive.org) to the precise Reuters article in question. Commondreams, rather than being acknowledged as publisher, should be noted as a "courtesy link" to the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally. Reuters is the original publisher, according to CommonDreams. But per my reading of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, we cannot cite Reuters. This reference "is really the web page, which is what you must cite." This web page is CommonDreams.org, and I don't think we can say Reuters is the publisher thereof.

But sure, if we find an article actually published by Reuters, this will be no problem. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Already removed the CommonDreams link. Anyway, calling commondreams the publisher would have been misleading, but the point is now moot. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I just saw you found one. Objection withdrawn. Good job.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dianna Ortiz Section Should Be Included

Some people -- two? -- argue for deletion and that's called consensus? They Wikilawyer five pages of backnforth and think they made their case? Standards must be upheld. Moriss levy (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus to delete this information. Its important part of the context of, as a major example, of the kind of violence perpetrated against civillians of that country for political reasons, by a regime that the US was supporting, directing, financing, arming, etc. And in this particluar instance, the US has its hands all over it. Its an important part of the larger allegations the sum of which has been identified as State sponsored terrorism by many legitimate sources. Please restore.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in this section it says:

While at Harvard, Gen. Gramajo publicly defended himself by saying:

“ "We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system ... which provides development for 70% of the population while we kill 30%. Before, the strategy was to kill 100%." ”

And it links to http://harvardwarcriminals.blogspot.com/2007/05/hector-gramajo.html, but that page actually cites "Jennifer Schirmer, "The Guatemalan military project: an interview with Gen. Hector Gramajo," Harvard International Review, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (Spring 1991)." Should the citation be replaced? Right now it looks like it citing blogspot which is bad. Dance With The Devil (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, replace it or add both as sources. The latter source is much better than a blogspot, which should not really stand on its own. Good catch.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, just seeing Blogspot in the references makes me cringe. Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Or did you locate that issue and verify it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a search to try to find this, and while I don't have this particular source, I have found another source (a good one) that quotes this (and other source). So I'm comfortable with the source. The source I found is a book called, "Vigilance and Vengeance: NGOs Preventing Ethnic Conflict in Divided Societies" by Robert I. Rotberg; Brookings Institution, 1996. It has as its source these two sources (in the notes on page 106: "Government sources cited in La Hora ( 24 September 1988), 3. Also see Jennifer Schirmer , "The Guatemalan Military Project: An Interview with Gen. Héctor Gramajo," Harvard International Review (Spring 1991)."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I also found this in the notes from an article found in, "International Socialist Review Issue 9, Fall 1999, entitled, "School of the Assassins" by Katherine DwyerGen: "Hector Gramajo: A field commander for the Guatemalan military in the 1980s and defense minister from 1987 to 1990, Gramajo once told the New York Times, "I got a lot of help from U.S. Central Intelligence."3 This is a bit of an understatement. Not only did Gramajo attend the SOA, but he was also granted a fellowship to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In an interview with the Harvard International Review, Gramajo gave himself a big pat on the back for instituting Guatemala's unique "civil affairs program." As Gramajo explained, "We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted civil affairs [in 1982], which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent."4 Gramajo, who taught "Counterinsurgency" at the SOA in 1967, spoke at the SOA graduation ceremony in 1991, six weeks after being tried and found guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and torture of Diana Ortiz."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the quote is definitely good. Here is another book from the University of California Press, entitled, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor", by Paul Farmer; University of California Press, 2003. On page 259, we find the same quote:

"We aren't renouncing the use of force. If we have to use it, we have to use it, but in a more sophisticated manner. You needn't kill everyone to complete the job. [You can use] more sophisticated means: we aren't going to return to the largescale massacres. …We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted Civil Affairs (in 1982) which provides development for 70 percent of the population while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent (Schirmer 1991, p. 11)." And, Chomsky apparently also cites the same interview: "Noam Chomsky cites a long interview that Gramajo accorded to anthropologist Jennifer Schirmer, who notes that the former Minister of Defense “granted me many hours of taped interviews. ” In the spring 1991 Harvard International Review, the general, then a Mason Fellow at Harvard, goes on record regarding the national-security doctrine he helped to put into practice: (followed by the same quote)..."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, I

I also found this from the first source which might be good point to add:

"The transition from authoritarian rule to procedural democracy in Guatemala has been contingent upon the military's victories over the guerrillas. In the early 1980s, the Guatemalan military engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign in which 440 indigenous villages were destroyed; an estimated 75,000 people were killed, an estimated 200,000 children were orphaned, and 40,000 women were widowed."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the book by Farmer also argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of Gector Gramajo. He writes:

"Elsewhere, I have tried to underline U. S. complicity in this officially blessed slaughter (Farmer 1994, pp. 237–46). It has deep roots. Even now, when there is supposedly peace, there is cause for shame, all too rare in such matters:

One of the grandest of the Guatemalan killers, General Héctor Gramajo, was rewarded for his contributions to genocide in the highlands with a fellowship to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government—not unreasonably, given Kennedy's decisive contributions to the vocation of counterinsurgency (one of the technical terms for international terrorism conducted by the powerful) (Chomsky 1993, p. 29)." This is also noteworthy as its is Chomksy's view that "counter insurgency" is one of the "technical terms" for international terrorism by the powerful, in other words by States.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these states the the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not allege this directly type of claim, so that comment is a bit of a red herring fallacy. The actual argument you have to comment on, and which the sources to allege, is the claim that the actors involved in this incident are part and parcel of the politically motivated policies, which certainly includes but is not limited to rape, murder, pillage--even genocide--done with significant US complicity, and support. This is what makes this case in point quite an important example and relevant for this article. It was part of the counter insurgency death squad activities, and Chomsky refers to this as international terrorism by the powerful, pointing to the US. So this section is about much much more than one rape, however brutal, it serves as pointed and famous example of the kind of violence and brutality that characterized the counter insurgency tactics, as a campaign of terror, as Chomsky calls it. As Prof. Farmer states, the US deep roots in these officially blessed slaughters. Sister Ortiz was not just some random rape. She was a victim of the larger US sponsored state terror that was inflicted on the people, per the various sources cited, and those I found above. To remind you of the facts regarding her, she was abducted by right-wing forces and brutally tortured. Among other torments she was gang-raped and suffered over 100 cigarette burns. She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete. Ortiz own public testimony implicate the US, and the U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her, which is part of the US support for the state terrorism of its puppet regime.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources finding the US responsible, please add them. The US was not responsible for every crime in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy: no one alleged or argues that the US is responsible for every crime in Guatamala. Stick to the real argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Add your claimed sources, if there are any. Do not include crimes not the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I never argued for the removal of the entire section, just the nauseating wall of text that was the Ortiz quote, but neither have I any objection to removing it all. The section was poorly accessible and, in my eyes, failed to make its point. I'd agree to restoring it, with an {{Off-topic}} banner, for now at least, if anyone would step up with suggestions for rewriting it, making it more accessible. Until I see any such suggestion, I'll object to restoring it; it makes the rest of the article look bad by association. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, II

Yes, I know your point is different than UltraMarines. And, I actually agree with you. The whole section is rather long and needs to be better written, more condensed. I feel the same way about the Cuba section. I'm not arguing to water down anything, or lose any information, just present the same information better, clearer, which I think is what you have been saying.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If wanting the accuse the US of human rights violations in general in Guatemala, there is already much material. More can be added if desired. But unless the US is responsible for the particular rape, then it should not be included. No reason to include a long graphical description, except in order to shock and propaganda, of something the US has not been shown responsible. The US was not responsible for all crimes in Guatemala or every rape by some kind of guilt by association.Ultramarine (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, where does the articles say the US is responsible for this particular rape? It doesn't, so that is a red herring. Does it say the US is responsible for all crime or every rape? No. These are straw man fallacies. I already explained why this rape is an important part of the larger context that the US is said to be involved in as a sponsor of state terror. So your removal of that section--the only editor who thinks the whole thing needs to be blanked--is against consensus. I suggest you restore it or your actions here can only be seen as disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we give long graphical descriptions of every rape or murder in Guatemala? Unless the US is responsible for this rape, including a long graphical description has no purpose, except as shock and propaganda.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be shifting arguments. First you argue that US has no complicity through a straw man fallacy that the US is not directly responsible for every rape, or crime in the country. Clearly a straw man fallacy. Now you are getting more to your real objection: you don't like that its a graphical description that clearly adds a "shock" value to the article. You call it propaganda. I call it exposing the nature of the brutality of State Terrorism. I oppose your wanting to white wash this important example of State Terror. And, I support telling the truth, no matter if its graphic and ugly or not. Face the truth, don't try to sanitize it. You can't.

Let me refer you to another source that claims that this particular act of rape and torture we are talking about (not all crimes or rapes--this one), is a part of the state terror. I refer you to an article entitled, "The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia. The author describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples, and noted that they were abundant in Guatemala. We mentioned then the historic responsibility of the civilian administrations of Vinicio Cerezo and Jorge Serrano for not properly investigating the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity." So now, drop your straw-man, "every crime," as the sources refers to this particular case an emblematic of US backed State terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your quote does not accuse the US of responsibility for the rape. Why include a long graphical description of crime not the responsibility of the US?Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the fourth, time, I never said it did. So why do you keep repeating that and ignoring what it does say? But what the sources do, and which you keep ignoring, is accuse the US as sponsoring State Terrorism, of which the case of Sister Ortiz, serves as a graphic example. You might deny these facts, but its not up to you, or me. Its what the sources argue. Why don't you deal with the actual claims, instead of your straw man claim?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How can this rape serve as an example of "US state terrorism" if the US was not responsible for the rape? Ultramarine (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the sources allege the US was deeply involved in the state terror instituted as part of the counter insurgency war, and the sources state that this rape, and torture of Sister Ortiz, was an example of this state terror, again in which the US is significantly complicit. In fact the source argues that the "political/psychological" aspect of the impunity evident in her case (among others) is part of state terrorism, in that that state manipulates fear through providing impunity for these crimes. Part of the allegation by the sources above is not just the that US supported, financed and trained the various right wing death squads that were responsible for this, but also that the U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her. This too is part of the US support for the state terrorism that is argued in the sources above. If you simply read what I wrote, you would not need to to ask this question.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming the US was responsible for many of the crimes, this does not mean that the US was responsible for this particular crime. That is guilt by association. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Plenty of evidence and arguments regarding the evidence has been presented about this case, above. You may not find it convincing that hardly matters, does it? This is not guilty by association, this is guilt by various associations, "deep roots" of involvement, diplomatic and financial support, training, money, etc. You can't support any more without directly doing it yourself! In anycase, its not up to me to convince you, its up to us to report what the sources argue. We do not get to suppress these arguments of connections and complicity of this state terror simply because we don't agree with the sources arguments. This is basic WP policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources showing that the US was responsible for the rape, then cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Undent. If you have a claim in the article that says "the US is responsible for the rape," let me know and I will remove it. But since that does not exist, then I think this means you have no objection, no argument to what it does say, which is supported by various sources. When you have an argument that deals with what it does say, then let me know. Straw man fallacies only prove you lack a basis to challenge the claims. Ignoring them and making up something else is not going to fool anyone here, I'm afraid.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the US was not responsible, then no justification for including the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, on the basis of the various claims made above that the rape and torture, including the cover-up and impunity of this crime, was part of the program of State terrorism supported by the U.S. Therefore, its justified to keep it in the article. Unless you have a source that denies this is the case, your personal opinion is irrelevant. And, even if you do have a source, that does not mean you can censor the the claims made by these sources, which is what you are trying to do. That is what lacks any justification. WP is not censored.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have sources for these claims and that the US was responsible for the rape, the cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, stop with the straw man fallacy. Sources given above more than support the claims and relevance of the matter, which you have so far failed to even address. Why are you ignoring it?Giovanni33 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these state the the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just complicity in State Terrorism, of which Sister Ortiz torture was part of parcel of, and as well as the impunity by which the crime was later dealt with. I'm glad you agree with me, then, and therefore this section stays. Thanks for makign it clear though your silence on the actual arguments, per above. :) No doubt you will be shortly restoring your wholesale deletion of the section.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have no sources stating that the US responsible for the rape, then it cannot be state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal POV, and you are entitled to it. Fortunately, though, this has nothing to do with this article or Wikipedia's policies. We do not get to insert our own person POV, OR, into an article, much less censor sourced claims and arguments from reliable sources on such a basis. Thanks for making your stance clear, though. I hope you familiarize yourself better with WP policies. I'm sure once you do, you will cease deleting sourced material on the basis of your own personal POV and original research claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP relies on verifiability. Again, if you have sources for your claim of US responsibility in the rape, then cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy. Article does not make this claim. It makes another claim, which you deleted, and fail to acknowledge that various sources that support what you deleted. Instead you ignore this and create a straw man. I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but since you are ignoring what I"m saying and repeating yourself like a broken record, I can only assume that communication with you about this is not serving any purpose other than to suggest I'm talking to a program/bot. If you are a real person, then please address the actual claims of the article, and the sources arguments that support those claims. Are you able to do that and thus prove I'm talking to a person and not a program?Giovanni33 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You making the claims of state terrorism by the US and the rape was one such act. You have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sources above make the claim. I even highlighted it in bold so you can see. Look for State Terrorism, and Sister Ortiz. Both in bold to see the arguments of her case and the accusations of State Terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)None of the sources state that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See you did it again. You switched the actual claim and made up your own straw man claim. Again, no, however it DOES state that her rape and torture by right-wing US funded para military forces, and the impunity of the crime, are aspect of the State Terror that was perpetrated, with US complicity. This is what the sources do say. You don't get to make up a completely different argument and substitute your own argument for the one that is actually made, to then say it's not supported. Duh. That is called a straw-man fallacy. How many times do I need to repeat myself? I hope I'm not talking to a bot but that is what it looks like.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still does not accuse the US of being responsible for this particular rape. The US was not responsible for every crime that occurred in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it never will. That is something you made up because you can't address the real argument. It's called a straw man fallacy. So this proves you lost the argument and thus your deletion is invalid.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The rape can not be state terrorism if the US was not responsible for it.Ultramarine (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can, and the sources I provide make that very case.If you have sources that support your argument, then fine, cite them and we can present their views. Why do you insist on including your own personal POV? That violates WP policy on Original Research and SYN. The sources make the claim that there is US complicity in the actions of State terror, of which what happened to Sister Ortiz, serves as one example, out of many, of State Terror. You are making a logical error by deducing from the premise that the US govt is not responsible for all crimes and rapes in the country, and therefore it is not complicit in the state terror for which the US has been accused of being complicit of? Its a non-sequitur, as the inference does not follow logically. It may be your own personal statement/OR but it is countered by the claims of reputable sources that do make exactly this argument. We are not here to argue with the sources POV, we are here to report it. Giovanni33 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No source have presented showing US responsibility of the rape. Even assuming that the US was responsible for many crimes in general in Guatemala, this does not make the US responsible for this particular crime. That would be guilt by association.Ultramarine (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your view, but that is NOT what the sources claim. The source I provided lists her as an example of State terrorism, in which the US is complicit. You argue that this is wrong as its guilty by association. That is YOUR own personal POV. Its OR, unless you have a source that makes that argument, in which case you may add it, provided its a good source. You may not, however, censor the arguments that are made, as they are validly sourced arguments. That you don't agree with their logic is not relevant!Giovanni33 (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please indent intelligently. When you get to about 12, write (Undent) to preserve the thread, then start again at the margin. Thank you so much. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, III

No, they do not. You have still not given a source showing that the rape was the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. They do, and I'll provide the sources again, and quote them. But, keep note (and this is important)--this is completely separate from your straw-man claim that it's about the "US govt being responsible for this rape, or all rapes or all crimes in the country." Please drop that straw-man, as that is not what is alleged at anytime by anyone, except yourself. Lets review what the sources do say, again.

• Book entitled, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor", by Paul Farmer; University of California Press, 2003, among many others, argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of Gector Gramajo. He writes: "Elsewhere, I have tried to underline U. S. complicity in this officially blessed slaughter (Farmer 1994, pp. 237–46). It has deep roots. Even now, when there is supposedly peace, there is cause for shame, all too rare in such matters:

• "One of the grandest of the Guatemalan killers, General Héctor Gramajo, was rewarded for his contributions to genocide in the highlands with a fellowship to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government—not unreasonably, given Kennedy's decisive contributions to the vocation of counterinsurgency (one of the technical terms for international terrorism conducted by the powerful) (Chomsky 1993, p. 29)." Note that its Chomksy's view that "counter insurgency" is one of the "technical terms" for international terrorism by the powerful, in other words by States. Again, Farm, Chomsky, et. all, argue for U.S. complicity, in what they describe as state terror. Now, specifically, for Sister Ortiz, as a victim of an aspect of State terrorism:

• The source,"The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples, and noted that they were abundant in Guatemala. We mentioned then the historic responsibility of the civilian administrations of Vinicio Cerezo and Jorge Serrano for not properly investigating the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity."

So this section is about much much more than one rape, however brutal, it serves as pointed and famous example of the kind of violence and brutality that characterized the counter insurgency tactics, as a campaign of international terror by those with power, as Chomsky calls it. As Prof. Farmer states, the US deep roots in these officially blessed slaughters. Sister Ortiz was not just some random rape. Her case is mentioned specifically in the context of "impunity" as a dimension of state terrorism, instituted for "political and psychological" and "the States manipulation of fear." Again, she was a victim of the larger US sponsored state terror that was inflicted on the people, per both sources. The facts regarding her? She was abducted by right-wing forces and brutally tortured. So stop calling just some random "rape." Among other torments she was gang-raped and suffered over 100 cigarette burns. She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete. Ortiz own public testimony implicates the US. The U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her. Again, you may disagree with the arguments by these sources, but you can not deny this is what they argue, specifically, in this case. Do not try to simplify it, or distort what the argument actually is, nor try to make up your OWN argument, which is just OR. Provide a source that presents your own view, if you want it included. But you have no basis to censor this sourced POV.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only source mentioning the rape is the third one which does not mention the US. Sidenote, what is the source for "She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete." She does not accuse the US of her rape.Ultramarine (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you thought Sister Ortiz was murdered? I see you know very little about the subject. There is a lot of info about her. She has even written a book. Wiliam Blum writes about her, under Guatamala: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html I do not use her as a source, as she is not needed, but her testimony adds to the evidence, since she identifies who she believes to be an American who was in charge. http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/12/sister_dianna_ortiz_details_her_abduction Btw, all the sources I mention all implicate the US in support of the Guatemalan government on many levels. Does anyone deny it? The commander in charge of the troops who abducted her was trained in the US, as the School of the Americans and rewarded afterwards, as Chomsky details. Make no mistake about it, the arguments strongly accuse the US has being involved with the State terror that Sister Ortiz was subjected to.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She never stated that she murdered anyone. She said she saw a person who spoke American English called "Alejandro". Many people speak American English without being US state terrorism agents. Again, possible other problems in Guatemala do not make the US responsible for this one.Ultramarine (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one is making that argument. That is, "possible other problems make the US responsible for this one." No one. If that is your understanding of what the sources say, then your understanding is deeply flawed. I'm not sure how to help. I do know what the actual arguments are, and since they are sourced, we can cite them, here. If you have a source for your charactrization of this, with your kind of argument (which I doubt, since it would be embarassing to see something published with that kind of straw man fallacy), please let me see it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor wanting to add or restore material. No evidence presented for US responsibility in the rape. Guilt by association or WP:SYN is not valid.Ultramarine (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, IV

Like Raggz, interestingly enough, you show a lack of understanding of basic policies here on WP. My claims are supported by the sources. Whereas you are making an original, novel, argument, based on a logical fallacy, and expecting that to stand. So while you have engaged in OR and SYN, while providing absolutely no sources to support your claims, seem to misunderstand WP:V, and WP:SYN. WP does not report "Truth" (esp. truth according to what you believe is true). Rather, it reports on the arguments and claims of valid sources. You don't think its true, as you think its "guilt by association," and that there is no "proof" which is good enough for this to be valid in your opinion. Well that is not relevant for WP policies here. It doesn't have to meet with your approval, understanding, or belief. The sources are valid, and thus their claims/arguments, can be reported on. Let the reader decide how much validity to give them. Its clear you know little of the subject, so I'm not surprised. But, I urge you to learn WP policies better before you refer to them.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You still not cited anything stating that the US was responsible for the rape. No responsibility, no state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you still fail to understand the issues, the actual arguments being made, and what the sources claim. For sure they do not claim what you think they should claim, but an absence of your claim does not preclude the validity of its claim. I did try my best to state clearly but you just keep going around in circles as has been characterisitc of your editing style. I think, whatever the cause or intentions behind it, its best described as tendatious editing. For this argument, I suggest you don't keep repeating yourself, as that will get us no where, but instead allow other editors active on this page weigh on, and abide by the consensus on this matter. So far you are the only editor who feels this section should be blanked.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Absence of sources stating that the US was responsible for the rape means the absence of verifiability for that that the rape was state terrorism by the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Its not helfpul. I already explained that this is your novel argument, and not what the sources argue. Our arguments can not go in the article. That is SNY/OR. Nor can you use your own argument about what you think the "truth" is to suppress the arguments from valid sources. This not how WP works. You don't like the sources arguments and don't agree with them. We know that. Your definition of "proving" US terrorism is that the US has to be responsible for her being rapped. Well that is yoru standard, and not the standard of any source. So its simply carries no weight. Whereas the sources line of argument do carry weight, since they are published professionals in reliable sources. That is the big difference here. Why don't you just allow other editors to weight in, instead of repeating over and over again your argument? Repeating ourselves is not going anywhere, and you show no sign of understanding this argument. Perhaps its too subtle.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How can it be state terrorism by the US is the US was not responsible for the rape? Ultramarine (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that is not the standard the sources use. Go back and read them and what I wrote. No need for me to repeat them again. I doubt you will grasp it either. All I can say is that you need to drop your own standard about what you think proves US complicity in State terror, as that POV of yours is what is blocking you from understanding the arguments that Chomsky, Farmer, and the other sources use to make the claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a quote stating that the US did state terrorism with this rape, state it. None of the above does that. State terrorism by Guatemala is not state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did quote. I think the gap here is understanding the argument rests on US support for State terrorism being committed directly the the US client state, but supported at various levels by the U.S., i.e. at the level of advise, taking orders, training, weapons, direct financing, other rewards, and defending the regime, conferring diplomatic shielding, and attempting to discredit its accusers, and lastly harboring and protecting the terrorists and human rights violators. Its this type of more indirect involvement in state terror that the US is accused of as being complicit in State terrorism. This is what the various critics actually argue. For example, Professor Gareau, accuses the US of State terrorism in the case of In El Salvador in 1980-91, where 75,000 people were killed, of whom the government, its army, the National Guard and its death squads, killed 95%. Was it State Terrorism by El Salvador? Yes. But that doesn't mean the US was not complicit in state terror. And he argues the US was. Why? Because the US gave El Salvador's state $6 billion, effectively supporting the terror. In Guatemala in 1962-96, the state's forces killed more than 90% of the 200,000 people killed. In Chile after the coup of 11 September 1973, the state, again, killed more than 95% of those killed. In Argentina in 1976-83, 8,960 were killed. In Colombia in 1986-95, 45,000 were killed, again 95% by the army and death squads. Between 1980 and 1988 the South African state killed 1.5 million people in neighbouring countries. Indonesia's army killed at least 1.5 million people in 1965, 1975 and 1999. In every case, the US state backed the state terrorism before, during and after it was committed. Gareau cites three studies showing that the more a state violated its citizens' rights, the more US aid it received. This was state terrorism, not even-handed civil wars, either, with half the violence committed by one side and half by the other. It was counter-revolutionary murder by US-equipped, US-trained armed forces against people with hardly any means of self-defense. Chomsky calls this support for counter insurgency international terrorism of the powerful. The sources I quote, implicate the US in State Terror. I could go on. Again, it does not matter if you don't accept this line of argument. Again, it does not matter. What matter is that this IS the argument that various credible sources use to implicate the US in State Terrorism. This is why its valid, no matter what you think. Your objection can not be rest on your own POV/beliefs about the veracity of this line of thinking. We don't have that luxury here in WP. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand how WP works.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to argue that since Guatemala is a "client state" every crime in Guatemala is fault of the US. Sorry, that is guilt by association. Most rapes are not ordered.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, wrong. I make no such absurd claim, nor do any of the sources. In fact, the sources I quote, specifically mention the Ortiz case as an example of State terrorism, and mention the "deep" US role. Like it or not, that is what is claimed. You can call it "guilty by association" if you have a source that supports your argument. So far I've seen nothing of that sort. So your objections fail to stand for inclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some state that the rape was Guatemalan state terrorism, none that it was US state terrorism. Again, the US was not responsible for every crime in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not the standard for this article, and the "not responsible for every crime in Guatemala' is a very tired straw-man argument, since no one is making that claim. Hence your rebuttal fails. The scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. Since you agree that this source does call this particular instance of gang rape, torture,etc of Sister Ortiz, state terrorism, and there is no dispute about the US role in supporting the State Terrorism of Gutamala, (as source claims), ergo you have no valid objection to his material. Case closed. Otherwise, we could not mention any of the acts of state terror by US client states, which clearly is not the case with this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are arguing for guilt by association alleging that the US was responsible for every crime in Guatemala. You have presented no source stating that the US was responsible for the rape or that is this rape was US state terrorism. Ultramarine (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep repeating things that a reasonable person would now is false, despite being informed several times, your arguments need not an assumption of good faith, but rather can now be pretty certain of being in bad faith. For example, your false claim I have not presented a source that this torture of Sister Ortiz is part of state terrorism--you even admitted that this claim was made! Now you contradict yourself. Secondly, your repeating the same straw-man argument about "every crime" when we are only talking about this one crime in particular that sources characterize as part of the state terror, i.e. Sister Ortiz was targeted for working with the poor, etc. So repeating that straw man about "every crime" despite being very clear several times that saying such is absurd, is further proof of bad faith, disruptive editing. If you continue, I shall report you.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not presented a source stating that the rape was US state terrorism or the responsibility of the US. Source for your claim that Sister "Ortiz was targeted for working with the poor, etc" Why would anyone want to rape her for that? Pure malice?Ultramarine (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Please stop with the "the US was responsible for every crime in Guatemala". Nowhere has anyone in the article or talk page made that claim. Your return to this ridiculous statement is absurd. One can only assume good faith in the presnce of proof otherwise for so long and this is yet another piece. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, V

Correct statement. If a women is raped in Germany, is that then US state terrorism since Germany have received much US aid and some officers have taken courses in the US? Ultramarine (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that claim Germany engaged in State terrorism sponsored by the US, against its own people, and that a particular example of that violence was part of that State terrorism, as an example of it, then yes, absolutely it would be valid for this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But you not presented any source claiming that the rape was US state terrorism. You have sources claiming human rights violations and state terrorism by Guatemala. Some sources claim US responsibility for some of the crimes. But no source showing that this particular rape was US state terrorism. If so quote it here, and everything will be resolved.Ultramarine (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Go back and read the sources. The sources describe the State Terrorism, and include Sister Ortiz as an example. The sources state "deep" US involvement, complicity in that State Terrorism of Gutatamala. Again, we do not need to show that this rape was US state terrorism. The scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. But I repeat myself.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No single source state what you claim. You violate WP:SYN by stringing together different sources, not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually not true, but moot, as its not SYN, since I'm not including any specific new claim. Rather I'm reporting on the various claims the sources made. This is what was done in the section you removed. The commander in charge of the security forces responsible for her torture was trained at the SOA, where our sources describes as a "training ground for State Terrorism." Each statement can have its own unique source making the claim. We do not create any new claims by putting it together. With your logic, one could not write an article unless we only had one source that said everything. False premise and false understanding of SYN.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source stating what you claim, cite it. "We do not create any new claims by putting it together." is exactly what WP:SYN prohibits.Ultramarine (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Many sources already provided. Since no new claims are being made, there is no SYN occurring. If you think there is, please quote the exact text from what you removed, the exact verbiage, where a claim is made that is not directly supported by a source, and is a SYn violation. You have failed to show that. I will be restoring this section shortly, as clearly there was no consensus to remove it; in fact you are the only editor who wants it removed.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No single source state what you claim. You add together several sources which WP:SYN does not allow.Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I claiming? What is the article claiming? Its not claiming what your demanding it should claim, hence the straw man fallacy. Im adding in different sources to talk about the relevance of this information, each statement on its own supported by reliable sources. I do not arrive at any new conclusion that I then state in the article, as that would be synthesis. Simply including it in this article as relevant per the sources does not in itself makes it synthesis, which is what you seem to be saying.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and material that do not accuse the US of state terrorism due to this rape do not belong to this article. To clarify, should we add details regarding all other rapes in Guatemala at this time, implying that they are US state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument. We make no claim that this rape is US state terrorism. However, it belongs in this article because sources say this instance of torture (stop just calling it rape--its was much more!), was State Terrorism, and we have sources that implicate the US as supporting this state terrorism, which is why there is a whole section on the country. This makes it relevant for the article. And, yes, we can include other notable examples of State terrorism, provided that sources describe them as victims of State Terrorism, which the sources do in the case of Sister Ortiz, who accuses the US of being involved herself. If your argument is one of this not being relevant because its just a rape, then you are really putting your head in the sand and ignoring what all the sources say.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"We make no claim that this rape is US state terrorism". If so, irrelevant for this article. "we have sources that implicate the US as supporting this state terrorism" No, you have sources accusing the US of state terrorism in Guatemala, but not for this rape. Sister Ortiz does not accuse the US of state terrorism, the closest is meeting a person speaking American English. No, you cannot violate WP:SYN and draw an original conclusion that this rape was US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The source,"The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors... the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity."
• This is relevant to this article since you agree this is a case of State Terrorism, in which the US has been implicated. I remind you, again: the scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. Since you agree that this source does call this particular instance of gang rape, torture,etc of Sister Ortiz, state terrorism, and there is no dispute about the US role in supporting the State Terrorism of Gutamala, (as source claims), ergo you have no valid objection to his material. Otherwise, we could not mention any of the acts of state terror by US client states, which clearly is not the case with this article. So why are you repeating yourself with the old refuted and false lines of argument? I know why: because you have NO valid argument. Also you are removing sections without consensus. Also, we have sources taht say Sister Ortiz implies the US was involved in her torture, and this is not me making up this SYN conclusion, this is other analysists who say this, and they are allowed synthesis, and thus we can included it here without any violation of policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, claims of state terrorism by Guatemala is not claims of state terrorism by the US. Please cite a single source stating that this rape was state terrorism by the US. "Claims of state terrorism by the US in Guatemala" + "other claims that the rape was Guatemalan state terrorism" does NOT equal "the rape was US state terrorism". That is only valid if the US is responsible for every single state terrorism act done by Guatemala. We have no source stating that "Sister Ortiz implies the US was involved in her torture". Again, the closest thing to the US is meeting a person speaking American English.Ultramarine (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VI

These arguments have already been dealt with at length; you are attempting to use bad-faith arguments that have already been rejected on the basis of sound, uncontroversial reasoning firmly based in solid interpretation of wikipedia guidelines.

Sister Ortiz is clearly mentioned in several of the sources as an example of the sort of terrorist acts which resulted from the U.S. support and promulgation of the State Terrorists who plagued Guatemala for several decades. Her experiences are clearly relevant to the article, and your own reasoning is based entirely on straw man arguments that have been repeatedly demolished by the other editors here. Stone put to sky (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Which source? Ultramarine (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned but the Dianna Ortiz affair is described prominently in Frederick Gareau's "State Terrorism and the United States." (p.25) It gets about seven paragraphs.BernardL (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So does he claim that it is state terrorism by the US? Which would be strange, considering that the Sister make no such claim.Ultramarine (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sister clearly does make such a claim. That's why the quote is included so prominently. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in that quote, she doesn't. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she clearly does. In that quote she clearly states that an American man who cannot speak proper Spanish was the leader of her torturers; that he was overtly concerned with U.S. media coverage of her kidnapping; that he told her that he would take her to friends at the embassy; that he did so in a government-issued car; that he admitted that he had come down from the U.S. to "help the [Guatemalan Government] fight communism", and that if she were to say anything at all about her experiences that he would leak the torture materials to the media.

It is quite clear that Sister Ortiz is accusing agents of the U.S. government of official involvement in her torture. We could provide further quotes where her lawyer and human rights groups explicitly link her testimony to accusations that the U.S. State Department was actively involved in helping to cover up the incident and guilty of conspiracy with the Guatemalan Government -- that, too, is an act of "State Terror", and we already have plenty of other sources making that explicit assertion.

Would you prefer that we make the section longer, and devote more coverage to Sister Ortiz? If you so desire i assure you -- we will be happy to cooperate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in this quote implies that he acts on behalf of the US. You may argue that it adds up to a strong case, but unless you find some source that makes this argument, this argument is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Contrariwise, if we do not make this argument, the quote is off-topic.

I would rather see even a single sentence that shows someone accusing the US for this. One (sourced) sentence would be enough; all else is nauseating fluff. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, however, this argument is made by others. They argue that Sister Ortiz implicates the US in testimony; the most relevant parts in the quotes. Perhaps we should add a source that says this outright? I wonder then would Ultramarine drop his objections? I'd like a yes, first, and then I'll go dig up a source. So is it a yes, ultra?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I'd like a to-the-point quote like that instead of the contested Ortiz quote. Ultra does not have a veto. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I already know his answer so I going to list one source I found. The title of the article is "Murder as Policy"by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995. In it we have recounted the argument by of all people former Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas Stroock (1989-1992), who makes exactly this argument, that Ortiz was implicating the US. The article talks about how Stroock was painted by The New York Times as having tried to rein in an out-of-control C.I.A in Gutamala, but that in fact, his real role was to cover for and facilitate American support for a killer army, the on-the-scene supervisor of a broad, multi-agency program of support for the Guatemalan military. Anyway, it goes into the example of Sister Ortiz. He tried to intimate her because, as the article reasons, "she had stated her belief that the chief of her tormentors was an American who seemed to be linked to the U.S. Embassy (she had escaped by leaping from his jeep as he was, he claimed, driving her to the embassy)." The article explains that Stroock finds these facts mean that Sister Ortiz is implicating the U. S. Government personnel in Guatemala's human rights violations. Of course he hates that she is doing this, and tries to shut her up, and calls it "a scurrilous smear on the good names of the fine Americans who serve their country in this Mission." He goes on to argue that "Ortiz's allegation of U.S. involvement "raises the most serious questions..." So there you have it. One of the head guys himself makes the argument that Ortiz is implicating the US in State terror, and goes on the attack to defame her and defend the US, as a result. The article goes on to explain that:

"Stroock's aide, Lewis Anselem,...was suggesting to foreign visitors that Sister Ortiz had not been abducted but had been wounded in a sadomasochistic lesbian tryst. This lie was publicly repeated by Gen. Hector Gramajo Morales, then Minister of Defense and a paid asset of the C.I.A., whose men had, by all evidence, raped and tortured Ortiz. As Ambassador, Stroock had routine access to the C.I.A.'s list of its assets in the Guatemalan Army, as well as knowledge--widely shared throughout the embassy--that the agency was engaged in "liaison" with the death squad coordinator, the G-2. (Reached in Guatemali on April 4, Stroock, now retired, declined to comment. Asked whether he had had access to the asset list, Stroock said "Good night, sir," and hung up. The C.I.A. "liaison" relationship with the G-2 has been, by standard procedure, sanctioned by the White House and State Department and was even discussed by senior embassy officials in spring 1990 background press briefings. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, both citing "diplomats" and "diplomatic ... sources," reported that the United States was using the G-2 to promote "stability" in Guatemala (the L.A. paper even mentioned that the C.I.A. was paying the G-2). During this period Washington, through its embassy, was supporting the Guatemalan Army in numerous ways:..."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any accusation in this that the rape was state terrorism by the US. Also, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not make this a deliberate policy by the US state.Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VII

That certainly seems like an adequate source to me. Another Nairn article is used just below the Ortiz quote, so it seems apropos to add more material in there from Nairn to back up the current section. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no accusation that the rape was state terrorism by the US in the source.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is clear: 'Ortiz's allegation of U.S. involvement "raises the most serious questions..."'. Not necessarily therefore on-topic, but it is clear, and I think we can use it.

How about, with your ref and a reference to the Ortiz source, something like this:

According to former United States Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas F. Stroock (1989-1992), Ortiz has alleged U.S. involvement in her rape and torture.

(Provided your ref holds up, of course; given the fragments quoted, I cannot say. For now I'll be happy to take your word for it though.)

If you ask me, something like this would be far more to-the-point than a graphic description of said torture. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even according to the Nation article, she is only stated that an American linked to Embassy was involved. Not a deliberate action by the US state itself. Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not automatically make this a deliberate policy by the US state. Also, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Furthermore, Wikipedia should not publish inaccurate statements, even if someone make them. Sister Ortize never make any claim regarding the embassy in her actual statement.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I fear we cannot take your word for it; that would violate WP:OR.  :)

Unless you can provide a source that says she never made any claim regarding US involvement, the best we have is the late Ambassador's statement. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who does not accuse the US of terrorism or being responsible for the rape. Again, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not automatically make this a deliberate policy by the US state. Someone from the embassy might well rape someone without this being ordered by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making the mistake, Ultramarine, of assuming that anyone here thinks "the rape", as you call it (actually -- the repeated rapes, gang-rapes, beatings, burial amongst a pit of corpses and rats, forced murder of a cell-mate, burns upon her back, and who knows what else) was ordered by the U.S. That, however, is not what anyone is suggesting. Instead, what we -- and the sources provided -- clearly believe is that the U.S. gave money to a bunch of thugs, put an American agent in charge of them, and then turned them loose on the Guatemalan people. The U.S. then hid and protected their activities locally (Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc), internationally (U.N., OAS, Europe, etc), and domestically (in the U.S.), all with full knowledge of the horrific atrocities that were being carried out.

Moreover, we -- and our sources -- believe that these activities were not restricted to a single group of actors but were carried out by several different groups, at least.

Thus, your argument is a straw man. The sources and statements provided clearly demonstrate that is the considered view of experts on this matter. Thus, your insistence that in this particular quote the Sister does not herself use the phrase "state terror" is clearly irrelevant. What the Sister is describing is quite obviously a pattern of harassment by government forces that was organized at the state level and which U.S. agents knowingly managed and participated in at an official level.

That is all we need to include it in the article. Perhaps you would like to argue that C.I.A. agents who are leading squads of men out into villages to capture stray nuns and take them back to hidden holes in the ground where they repeatedly rape them, burn them with various implements, beat them into submission, eletrocute them with car batteries, dump them into holes filled with rats and decomposing bodies, and then force them to hold a machete they are using to carve up a living person before her very eyes --

Obviously, you want to argue that these things are not "terrorism" that can be attributed to the United States. But until you can find us some reliable sources which take your position -- that is, that this Alejandro, who worked at the U.S. Embassy, drove a government issued vehicle, spoke American english, and, in his words, "had come to help fight communism" --

Until you can find a source that reasonably explains his presence as something other than official U.S. level involvement, then our sources stay, as is. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument does not even touch "U.S. involvement". Motives? Irrelevant; this is no court of law. Independent action? Irrelevant; that is not what has been claimed. "U.S. involvement" is the claim, and that trumps your un-sourced objections.

You might do better by pursuing a line of "U.S. involvement" does not imply "terrorism" (for now, I'm reserving judgment on that), but claims of U.S. involvement have been sourced. Without sources of your own, you cannot argue your way out of it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sidhekin re: the Ortiz quote: Sidhekin, i simply do not understand your position on this. Are you saying that we should divest the article of this passage because...why? Because it's long? Because it's irrelevant? Because it doesn't add anything to the article?

It seems to me that you don't like it because it's unpleasant, and it seems to me that you don't want unpleasant things in this article because you consider them too volatile and irrational for proper encyclopedic or academic discourse. Am i wrong in that? Or do you have other reasons? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I want it gone because it makes the (in this context) interesting information less accessible.

As I see it ...

Yes, it is long. Getting to the point quicker will make a more readable article, and will make the good stuff accessible to a less patient reader.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Descriptions of torture does not tell us anything of the article's topic. Perhaps I should mark it {{off-topic|torture}}? Anything off-topic distracts the reader, reducing signal-to-noise ratio, and in such amounts as these makes the on-topic less accessible.

No, I fear it adds something to the article: Among other things, it adds a strong incentive for anyone of normal human sensibilities to stop reading it. This makes the article less accessible.

Yes, I find it unpleasant. That in itself is insufficient reason to exclude it, but as I see no good reason to include it, it is added incentive to get rid of it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searching finds many interesting opposing claims regarding this case, like this: [6]. If we include the rape, then the opposing side should be equally presented.Ultramarine (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like the part where it says this:

Based on our inquiry to date, the IOB believes that Sister Ortiz was subjected to horrific abuse on November 2, l989, but US intelligence reports provide little insight into the details of her plight. Because the Department of Justice is still conducting an extensive reinvestigation of the incident, we do not draw any conclusions on the case at this time.

Yah, right! You just showed us a report that unequivocally states the U.S. investigators believe her story but have been stonewalled by all official lines of inquiry. Since that's precisely what the current sources state, all you've done is bolster the case on the page.

Thanks for the source, Ultra. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VIII

From Sidhekin, above re: Ortiz passage:

I want it gone because it makes the (in this context) interesting information less accessible.

I disagree. I think it makes the content far more accessible: instead of abstract, academic, bureaucratic new-speak about the sorts of violence we're talking about, here, the readers are given one -- one! in the entire article! -- first-person description of precisely what these various commentators mean by "horrific", "terrorism", "human rights", and so forth.

Yes, it is long. Getting to the point quicker will make a more readable article, and will make the good stuff accessible to a less patient reader.

I don't think it's long at all. It's a few paragraphs long, but virtually every sentence could stand alone as an independent fact. They each build on one another, and if you take away any single sentence you reduce the overall meaning of the passage in a significant fashion. Each one is a fact of intrinsic relevance to both this discussion as well as the Ortiz case, in particular.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Descriptions of torture does not tell us anything of the article's topic.

Uhhh -- really? I would think that massive detention centers where civilians are routinely tortured by government agents working with U.S. Embassy personnel are rather central to the topic, and even more so when the agents in question beg off the event by saying that it was a case of "mistaken identity". Do you really think that first-person evidence of government sponsored torture centers is utterly unrelated to the topic of State Terrorism?

No, I fear ...it adds a strong incentive for anyone of normal human sensibilities to stop reading it. This makes the article less accessible.

Well -- i can sort of see your point, here. I'd point out, however, that by removing it from the article we are basically reinforcing the sanitized discourse that currently prevails, where supposedly informed people can maintain with a straight face that Sister Ortiz' case is an isolated incident where a lesbian nun got burned during a tryst with her lover. The example as presented makes it clear that her injuries and experience went quite further than cigarette burns on her back, and the description of the entire experience makes it clear that we're not talking about any normal understanding of military conflict. The description established quite clearly that when the word "human rights violation" is used it's not describing what any sane person would call "honorable" conduct.

Yes, I find it unpleasant. That in itself is insufficient reason to exclude it, but as I see no good reason to include it, it is added incentive to get rid of it.

Well, yeah -- i do too. But we can get to this later, i think. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed and replaced by a text making an accusation of the US clearer. Not even the articles on Stalin's horrors have detailed individual descriptions, so no need for it here.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As you're so fond of citing, Ultramarine: just because it happens on another article doesn't mean it applies here. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for very detailed description in an overview article. It should be replaced with a text which clearly accuse the US of something, like the Nation source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It clearly states that the Nun believes U.S. Embassy personnel led the men who tortured her. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The word embassy is not even in the quote in the article now.Ultramarine (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete the opposing view material completely? Ultramarine (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You pasted an entire section of an investigative report. If this were the habit on this article it would now read well over 5000 printed pages long. That is utterly unacceptable -- please make a clear statement of fact and source it with reference to the article. Moreover, i suggest you first float your suggestion on this page. If you don't, and are reverted, then i will *immediately* report you to AN/I for tendentious editing. We have asked you scores of times, now, to please float your edits on the talk page.

I am not joking. Please respect your fellow editors, Ultra. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article have a very long quote from the Sister, so what is wrong with a cite from the opposing side? Respect NPOV. But again, we need material that in fact accuse the US of something, the quote does not even mention the embassy. Should be replaced by the nation material.Ultramarine (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the second time you've made that assertion. Obviously, you can't even be trusted to read the texts you are debating. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a search of the quote in the article from the Sister. No "embassy". Please explain why you completely deleted the opposing view material.Ultramarine (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, mate -- I can see where he explained himself and the embassy. Aho aho (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where? Again, make a search of the quote in the article from the Sister. No "embassy". Still no explanation for deleting all the opposing views.Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just did. And, lo and behold:

....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think your search tool needs service, Ultra. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Regardless, no justification for completely deleting the opposing views material. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, I'm disappointed. You're supposed keep arguing along the lines of, "It still does not mention the US Embassy anywhere in any source. Also there is no mention of the US Embassy as having committed "the rape" etc..." So this is not relevant. Not even the articles on Stalin's have individual descriptions, so no need for it here...":) Forgive the comedy but I can just picture this caricature on Saturday Night Live. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I always listen to reason. Back to the issues. No justification for completely deleting the opposing views material. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote.Ultramarine (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is. Its called Consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was, Wikipedia is not an ongoing published survey of the current majority opinions among the article editors. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a democracy but an encyclopedia. Policies such as NPOV must be followed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but what constitutes NPOV itself is determined by consensus, i.e. editors hear arguments and come to agreement about what is appropriate and what is not per these policies. I think the editors here do adhere to NPOV and other core WP policies and disagreements are effectively handled via consensus. That was my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputes are resolved by discussion, not straw polls. Again see WP:NOT regarding democracy.

Back to the issues. Completely deleting the opposing views on this issue obviously violates NPOV. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote on this particular rape, compare to all other overview articles discussing human rights violations.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but disputes are not always resolved where everyone is happy with the result. That is why we have consensus. IF you are the only editor who doesn't agree, consensus becomes clear on the question. And, there is a reason for keeping the long quote: notability of the example that is relevant and informative. Again, remember, consensus is for this article, not other articles. If you disagree, you can follow any of the dispute resolution methods, but talking it to death when no one agrees with your solutions has its limitations, needless to say.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No straw poll has been made so current opinion is unknown. Regardless, discussion is the accepted way to solve disputes, see above. Still no reason given for violating NPOV by completely erasing all the critical material.Ultramarine (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i screwed up the notes

Somebody please fix it, because i can't see what's wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats happened to me before. I just reverted my self, and started over, being careful to copy the previous formatting. I think just one change with the notes gets it all messed up like that. By the way, I support your edit as I think it is relevant background information about the country.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Capturing the Redflag...and putting it away

User:Raggz has made much of the WP:REDFLAG policy as a rationale for removing sources. An RfC was opened on this issue which found all editors who commented disagreeing with Raggz' interpretation of the policy. However this did not end the dispute so I took the question to the talk page of our WP:Verifiability policy (which is where WP:REDFLAG lives). The relevant thread that followed can be found in WT:V archive number 23 or by clicking here. I will try to summarize though.

Basically two editors responded to my question, wherein I used the Marjorie Cohn source from footnote one as an example. The first direct comment came from User:Brimba who said of WP:REDFLAG (in part) "That section job is to simply say 'Hey, if you see this, it’s likely an exceptional claim'. The bullets themselves are not meant to define exceptional claims so much as to help flag them..." (emphasis added). User:SlimVirgin then weighed in (quoted in full):

"Hi BTP, I agree with you that the "media echo" claim is wrong. It's true that this is an exceptional claim and that it needs a good source. Given that the source is a professor of law, and the publication an academic journal, the source is clearly reliable enough. I would say not ideal, because she doesn't seem to be a specialist in this area (at least not according to her WP article), but certainly good enough." (emphasis added)

To which Brimba then replied "While I would have certainly worded it different, I concur with SV."

For those familiar with this dispute, what we have here is two outside (and very experienced) editors disagreeing with Raggz' claim about a "media echo" and validating the Cohn source (which is just an example, not something to fetishize and discuss ad infinitum!) that Raggz challenged using the "redflag" section of WP:V.

Additionally I would point out a couple of things. SlimVirgin is probably the single most experienced editor of policy pages (a lot of people disagree with her, but her experience is undeniable). Also she does not care for this article in case anyone is wondering. In the AfD last summer she voted to delete saying "Delete. OR, badly sourced, violation of WP:NOT." So Slim is hardly a far-left-friend-of-this-article - indeed quite the contrary. Similarly, while Brimba agreed with SV about the policy question, this user also strongly objected to using Ganser as a source and seemingly to a fair amount of the article content (again see this thread).

Point being that both of these editors - who edit the policy page in question and therefore have the relevant experience - disagree with Raggz' interpretation of WP:REDFLAG but on the other hand have major problems with this article. That is, we should view their opinion on WP:REDFLAG as fairly objective and well-informed. Those opinions are largely in agreement with the opinions expressed in the prior RfC which disagreed with Raggz' view.

I sincerely hope this puts this matter to rest for now and indeed for the future. There are more important things to be discussing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for definitively putting this "Reg Flag," "mainstream Media Echo" argument to rest for good. The song and dance over this, his favorite line of argumentation, was certainly a distracting waste of time. I would hope this would finally convince him that his interpretation of that policy was just a case of being honestly mistaken, and move on to more enlightened policy comprehension. If I never hear "red flag" again, it will be too soon (unless its a completely different kind of red flag...hehe)Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

CANF

In 1998 the Cuban government charged the Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding through the National Endowment for Democracy with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities. Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF.

In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Fidel Castro.

None of these involve actions by the US government, only CANF. One incident even is the US stopping an assassination attempt on Castro. Should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The initiative to and funding of CANF are US government actions, aren't they? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The given source does not support that the CANF is funded by the NED. Regardless, actions done by individual members without the knowledge of the board is not the responsibility of the CANF, much less the US.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes; thank you. A superficial reading of the source left me with the impression that it did support this (if obliquely), but on closer inspection, I see it doesn't.

I've tagged the passage accordingly with {{fact}} and the cite with {{failed verification}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove these paragraphs shortly unless sources are given linking this to US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Patience, please. It is not as if we have a deadline, right? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a well known fact. Even the main article on it states that the CANF, "between 1990 and 1992, it received a quarter million dollars from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization financed by the US government." What is in doubt here?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are tons of sources. Its well known that the NED is a CIA money funneling creation of Regean, that gave money to the Contras, and in Afghanistan, and esp. well known is its support of the Cuban terrorists. The quote above comes from "Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy" by William Blum. Here is an article entitled, "The Congress; the Power of the Anti-Fidel Lobby by John Spicer Nichols, published in The Nation, Vol. 247, October 24, 1988, that I quote: "the creation and Federal funding of the National Endowment for Democracy...of a proposal made by President Reagan...One of the first grants awarded by the new endowment was to the Cuban American National Foundation... To date, the foundation has received a total of $390,000 in Federal funds from the N.E.D. Although the deliberations of N.E.D. directors are held out of the public eye in executive session, an endowment spokeswoman confirmed that Fascell has voted for grants to the C.A.N.F. on at least three occasions. The only other elected official on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, also voted for the Federal grants to the C.A.N.F. It goes on to talk about the loblying arm PAC that has ties with Regan, Bush, and various politicians that get lots of PAC money in return.

In another article, titled, "Minority Report" by Christopher Hitchens; The Nation, Vol. 254, June 8, 1992, he talks about CANF founder Mas Canosa, and the NED: "Until now, Mas Canosa and the thuggish periphery of his organization have been able to repress dissent among Cuban-Americans, many of whom tell the opinion pollsters that they favor freedom of travel between Cuba and the United States, cultural exchanges, mail and phone service and other obvious and humane improvements. Against this must be set the domination of a faction, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, that directly brought us the Bay of Pigs, indirectly brought us the Cuban missile crisis, twenty years ago gave us the Watergate burglars and has consistently supplied fanatics and hysterics to the national security state. This faction has now bought, with contemptuous ease, the Democratic nominee. A fine day's work." And here are some of my favorites sources about the terrorist nature of the CANF:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10779, http://www.democracynow.org/1998/7/17/cuban_american_national_foundation_sues_theGiovanni33 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

William Blum is hardly an unbiased source. Regardless, these sources are from 1988 and 1992, before the events mentioned in the article occurred. Ultramarine (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the truth is biased. I am biased for the truth too. Facts are facts. I think it was Lenin who said facts are stubborn things. As far as the money coming first, and then the actions, yes, I believe that it the usual and logical sequence of events: you pay for something, and then it you have money to make things happen. So what is your point? I gave several sources, so the claims are accurate.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything from the last ten years arguing funding by the US? Ultramarine (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The claims does not allege anything about specific dates. Its irrelevant. It only claims funding by the US govt. of this organization, at the same time this organization is accused of supporting terrorism. This is the only thing that is relevant.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The claims include for example an incident in 2006.Ultramarine (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, and my statements stand. How is this relevant? Do you have a source that says the US govt. made a mistake and no longer will fun the CANF? If you do that would be worthy of inclusion, as it would show the US govt. repudiated the funding of this organization. I don't believe this has ever occurred. So again, what is your point? Please back it up with a source.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If CANF had nothing to do with the US government in 2006, then the US government cannot be responsible for actions CANF or some of it members did.Ultramarine (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says CANF has "nothing to do with the US govt in 2006?" That is your claim and its is unsupported. If you have a source for that, then I agree it would be important to include as it shows the US repudiated its support of this organzation in the tune of large amounts of money that enabled it to carry out its various right wing activities.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making the claim of state terrorism by the US, you have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm supporting the claim that the US govt. funded the CANF though the NED, which you denied and asked for a source. Now that that has been given, you seem to be creating a distraction by bring up other issues, such as your claim that the US has nothing to do with CANF. Really? Where do you come to that conclusion from, in light of the information about these connections above? Also, stop changing the subject, and moving the goal posts. The issue was if NED funded CANF. The answer is yes, the claim is supported. You say its not longer the case? Source please.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether the US have done state terrorism. If they nothing do with CANF in 2006, then the US cannot be responsible. It is those arguing for a connection between CANF and the US in 2006 who must provide a source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your magical time line premise is not logical, and your claim is unsupported. US funds CANF, CANF is accused of complicity in terror against Cuba. That is the argument. You now are making the claim that the US has nothing to do with CANF because its 2006? Again, this may be your personal opinion but its not relevant here unless you have a source that says that US now no longer has anything to do with it. Even that argument would be hard to swallow given the previous financial support that is well documented. But, I wonder, what is your magical time line for when huge amounts of money cease to have an effect? Did the US take the money back, plus interest, plus the effect that that money had on its ability to operate and expand, thus proving the US no longer has any influence lasting on this organizations activities, that is has not complicity? Again, I've love to see any source that has such an argument. But you failed to show even one. Your own personal POV, and unsourced statements do not count. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If there were any funding by the NED, at the start or in 2006, it should be easily be verifiable by reliable sources such CANF's as annual reports. Guessing that funding may have continued to the present is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not guessing, but it seems youa re. You are making the claim that the US has no support of CANF. If its easily verifiable as you say, then why have you not supported your claim? You made the claim that, "If CANF had nothing to do with the US government in 2006, then the US government cannot be responsible for actions CANF." First you have failed to show your premise is correct, that "the CANF has nothing to do with the US," and then you have to show how an alleged lack of funding for 2006 abdicates any responsibility or connection to the US govt., despite the previous generous funding? You don't get to make up your own personal criteria regarding time lines and jump to conclusions that it means "no connection" or "no responsibility." That is OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are making the claims and want to include material, it is you who have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost. If you have a source stating that CANF has received $390,000 from NED, why haven't you referenced it in the article? — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found the source, since it was alleged to be missing. So instead of arguing about it, why doesnt Ultra simply drop the matter and put in the source that he asked for, making any appropriate chagnes per the source? It seems regarless of what the source says, he doesn't want it included because he personally doens't agree the US has any involvement.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still lost. "alleged to be missing"? Are you saying it was there all the time? If so, point it out to me, and I'll remove the {{Failed verification}}; after all, it was I who added it.

Either way, focus on the article. You can change the article, but there is no functionality for changing other editors. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You given no source for any funding in recent times. Like in 2006 when one claimed act of state terrorism occurred. Regardless, even shown funding by the NED is not proof of responsibility by the US. NEDs funds are not intended for terrorism. What CANF and its members do on its own is not the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your own personal argument, so not relevant here. What is relevant, is the claims by various sources which disagree with you, and make claims to the contrary.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for recent funding. You want to include material, you have to give the sources.Ultramarine (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed the need to state "recent" funding. I only claim they have been funded by the US govt, though NED. If you wish to make a counter claim that no such funding has occurred, since xxx, then you have to provide material to support that claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, why don't you add it? Why are you waiting for someone else to add it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see consensus to add it and its still under discussion. If you agree it should be added then that is making progress. I don't mind waiting and don't want to engage in an edit war. In fact, I avoid editing the article beyond one possible revert per week.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith's#Giovanni33_restricted. Regarding this article, if there are no supporting sourced, material can be challenged and removed anytime. The burden of evidence is on the person arguing adding or keeping material. See WP:V.Ultramarine (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What follows are some sources for the triangular relationship between the U.S., CANF, and Cuban exile terrorism. This material has already been introduced in talk here, and I had suggested a re-write of the Cuban material. For me it seems that the CANF issue is less important than Operation Mongoose (with its side Operation Northwoods) and U.S. complicity with terrorism associated with Orlando Bosch, Posada Carrilles and their associations with Operation Condor. Newcomers here should understand that historically we have moved pretty slowly with the introduction of new material, mostly I think because construction of the article has been constantly distracted by deletionists whose actual motives have been disruption of constructive editing altogether. here is the material...

7. Wayne Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor at the John Hopkins University.

“In 1985, Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA-trained Bay of Pigs veteran and explosives expert, “escaped” from prison in Venezuela by offering prison officials $28,600. The Miami Herald reported that, “Posada’s friends broke him out of jail in a carefully planned plot, secretly spirited him across the Caribbean and took advantage of the clandestine contra world to stash him in Central America.”33 The Miami Herald later confirmed that Posada had surfaced in Oliver North’s secret contra operation at the Ilopango airbase in El Salvador, with the assistance of CIA operative Felix Rodriguez (a.k.a. Max Gomez)—another Bay of Pigs veteran—who was “a key figure in the Iran-contra scandal with close ties to then Vice-President Bush.”34 …Rodriguez admitted that he harbored Posada at the request of a wealthy Miami resident—“an old friend”—who he said had also financed Posada’s escape from prison.35 Rodriguez refused to answer questions before the Senate about notations in Oliver North’s notebooks that indicated a transfer of $50,000 to Rodriguez from Jorge Mas Canosa (the late chairman and founder of the Cuban American National Foundation), also a Bay of Pigs veteran.36 In his autobiography, Rodriguez calls Mas—who once offered to pay for an attorney for Rodriguez during the congressional inquiry into the contra operation—a “longtime friend.” (Landau, Anya K. and Smith, Wayne S. “Keeping things in perspective: Cuba and the question of international terrorism, Center for International Policy, November 20, 2001)

9. Morris Morley is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Chris McGillion is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication, and currently directs journalism studies, at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia.

"terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had specialized in attacks on Cuban embassies and consulates through Latin America and was believed responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner over Venezuela, in which seventy-three people died. Lobbying by CANF and its Florida republican allies, including the president’s son Jeb Bush, was an instrumental factor in Bosch’s release." (Morley, Morris and McGillon, Chris. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba After the Cold War, 1989-2001,37)

"CANF was a perfect candidate for the kind of Faustian deal the ‘public diplomacy program demanded. In return for funds, legitimacy, and access to senior policymakers, it would publicly back the White House covert wars against real and imagined communists and target individual members of Congress to support administration policies using a mixture of rigorous lobbying and inducements in the form of Free Cuba Political Action Committee (PAC) financial contributions to election campaigns." (Morley, Morris and McGillion, Chris. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba After the Cold War, 1989-2001,12)

10. Salim Lamrani is a French researcher at the Sorbonne University and is specialized in U.S.-Cuban relations since 1959.

"During an interview, published in the New York Times of July 12, 1998, Posada Carriles acknowledged that he was financed by CANF. After praising himself as being the person who has made the greatest number of attacks against Cuba, he announced that he was paid by the former president of CANF, Jorge Mas Canosa. “Jorge controlled everything” he declared “each time that I needed money, he asked someone to send me 5 000 dollars 10 000 dollars 15 000 dollars”. At the time of each financial transaction, the following message was attached. “This is for the church.” “All in all, Mas Canosa, CANF, and more particularly Feliciano Foyo, the treasurer of the Foundation, provided more than 200,000 dollars to one of the worst terrorists in the world.” Posada Carrilles boasted about being the paramilitary wing of CANF and added, “As you can see, the FBI and the CIA do not bother me, and I am neutral with them. Each time I can give them a hand I do so." He also revealed that he knew “a very high placed person” in the government who protected him.” (Lamrani, Salim. Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba, 104)

"In March 1999, Percy Francisco Alvarado, a Guatemalan agent of Cuban National Security, having infiltrated the Cuban American National Foundation, made a statement at the time of the court case against the assassin of Mr. DiCelmo. He confirmed that he had received 20 000 dollars on behalf of Francisco “Pepe” Hernandez, the president of CANF, in order to explode two bombs in tourist areas of Havana. At the time of the hearing, it was declared that "the CANF played an active and hegemonic part in the financing and organization of the terrorist acts," by means of the creation of a secret paramilitary group bearing the name of Cuban National Front (CNF)." (Lamrani, Salim. Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba, 105)

13. Robert M. Levine was Gabelli Senior Scholar in the Arts and Sciences, Director of Latin American Studies, and professor of history at the University of Miami.

“The Orlando Bosch matter made the extent of the CANF’s influence clear. In February 1988, Orlando Bosch Avila, one of the two suspected bombers of the Cubana airline plane over Barbados in 1976 who had been sentenced in Venezuela for the crime, escaped from prison and traveled to Miami, where INS officials arrested him as a fugitive from justice. Through the efforts of right-wing Cuban Miamians and others, Bosch gained his freedom on July 17, 1990. In reaction, the New York Times editorialized that the Justice Department had released him not for legal reasons but rather due to visible political pressure. It also observed that “while the United States had sent the air force to bomb Libya and the army to invade Panama in the name of combating terrorism, the Bush administration was now pampering one of the most notorious terrorists in the hemisphere.” (Levine, Robert M. Secret Missions to Cuba: Fidel Castro, Bernardo Benes, and Cuban Miami, 227)

“Luis Posada Carrilles was the second suspect in the airline bombing. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while awaiting trial, and, disguised as a priest, made his way back to Miami. In his memoirs, The Paths of the Warrior, published in the late 1990’s, Posada Carrilles praised Jorge Mas Canosa for capably leading the anti-Castro fight and for sending Posada Carrilles “a sufficient amount of money, which arrived regularly every month.” (Levine, Robert M. Secret Missions to Cuba: Fidel Castro, Bernardo Benes, and Cuban Miami, 227)

14. Brett Heindl is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Syracuse University.

“During the 1980 election cycle, hardliners in the exile community made their first foray into national politics. Led by businessman and Bay of Pigs veteran Jorge Mas Canosa, they backed Florida Republican Paula Hawkins in her successful bid to unseat incumbent U.S. senator Richard B. Stone and parleyed their connection to the freshman senator to gain access to the administration in March 1981, at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, Mas Canosa formed the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The partnership quickly established CANF as the main actor in exile politics and flooded it with federal aid money.” (Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 169)

“CANF and other hard-line groups thrived during the Reagan years. By the mid-1980‘s, exile militants had reopened several secret military training camps in the everglades. Among the most prominent was the camp opened in 1980 by an offshoot of the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association. Alpha 66 also opened a training camp in Dale County; Alpha 66 commander Andres Nazario Sargen claimed that by 1992 over twenty-seven thousand people had passed through its gates for training in urban warfare. In the meantime, exile moderates floundered during the Reagan years, CANF‘s sophisticated political and propaganda machine and its ambiguous relationship to political violence smothered moderate perspectives.“ (Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 170)

"CANF was also implicated in a thwarted attempt to assassinate Castro at the November 1997 Ibero-American Summit on Margarita Island in Venezuela. This time, the evidence was more damning. On October 27, U.S. Coast Guard personnel received a distress call from a ship off the coast of Puerto Rico. They boarded the boat and, after a routine search, found two .50 caliber sniper rifles, ammunition, and other military equipment stashed in a hidden storage space. When they went to arrest the boat’s four occupants, one of the men allegedly blurted out that he was on a mission to kill Castro. A Subsequent investigation revealed that Jose Antonio Llama, a member of CANF’s board of directors, owned the boat and that one of the high-powered rifles was registered under the name of foundation president Francisco Hernandez. If the foundation’s relationship to political violence had previously been ambiguous, these new revelations struck the organization’s critics as distinctly unambiguous. Llama and five others were indicted for the incident, but not Hernandez. All six men were later acquitted.” ((Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 179-80)

17. Saul Landau is the Hugh O. La Bounty Chair of Interdisciplinary Applied Knowledge at the California State Polytechnic University. He is also a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

“Following his 1963 Fort Benning experience, Mas met Jose "Pepin" Bosch, kingpin of the Bacardi rum family, and abandoned his shoe-salesman career in Little Havana. How does a former shoe salesman with little record of accomplishment get into millionaire Bosch's league? Did the CIA suggest that Bosch back Mas, yet another among many Cuban exiles plotting terrorist raids against Cuba, as a leader of RECE (Representacion Cubana en el Exilio)? Former House Assassinations Committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi says that the CIA, not Bosch, financed RECE. Fonzi cites an FBI document that has Mas delivering $5,000 to Luis Posada, then a CIA contract agent, to blow up a Soviet or Cuban ship docked in Veracruz, Mexico.(3)” Saul Landau, "No Mas Canosa," Monthly Review Mar. 1999: 22

“During the late 1960s, Mas claimed participation in several terrorist operations, including a machine-gun strafing of a Havana residential area. Mas also tried to retrofit some Second World War vintage B-26s to bomb Cuban oil refineries. He even got involved with plans to send missile-carrying speed boats near the Cuban coast to fire at "strategic" targets. These missions didn't materialize - or failed to meet their objectives.” Saul Landau, "No Mas Canosa," Monthly Review Mar. 1999: 22BernardL (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CANF is accused of many bad things. What is the connection with the US government in the year 2006 when one of the alleged incidents by CANF or its members took place? I see one claim that "in March 1981, at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, Mas Canosa formed the Cuban American National Foundation" That hardly seems evidence for that CANF is just a US proxy which makes th US responsible for everything CANF does.Ultramarine (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombing

Extremely pov description with no mention of much greater number of deaths estimated if the US had not bombed. Ultramarine (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of justified terrorism are still allegations of terrorism, no? Anyway, what improvements would you suggest? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should at least mentioning the supporting arguments given in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as that is beyond the scope of that section. This is not a section for the pro/con debates about the dropping of the bomb. To do so would be to create a fork. Those arguments are discussed in the main article which it points to. This section only explores the allegations that the action constituted an act of State Terrorism. I feel the section is very balanced and NPOV. If you find any good sources that present arguments about this not being state terrorism, then it can and should be included.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. The views of all sides should be mentioned. For example, the article states that the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Not a single mention of the much more important reason for using the bomb, the much greater causalities expected if the bomb had not been used.Ultramarine (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The debate about ultimate causalities is off topic since its irrelevant to consideration of the action being an act of state terror or not. The historical record is clear that primary consideration for the target was not as a military purpose, but to create a psychological impact, and that is why civillians were purposely targeted. This is beyond dispute. I merely state that these facts constitute the main reasons why various scholarly consider this an act of state terror. The arguments that it also saved lives (bongus in my view), is besides the point, and already covered in the main article on the subject.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Declarations like "read NPOV" will always be annoying to experienced editors. Avoid them. But, Ultramarine, explain how the last paragraph in the Japan section fails to provide NPOV? You were not a part of that discussion, but it was added for the purpose of providing more balance. The source is a very well respected journal article by a historian who basically believes the bombings were the right decision. If there is a way to frame it in a more NPOV fashion I am open to that. But be specific and be aware of the source that was used in that paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no mention of the much larger causalities expected if no using the bomb. See Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead, the reason given is "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Obviously do not include all views.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please differentiate for me the "traditional" and "revisionist" approach to the a-bomb as described in the source. It is quite pertinent to the matter at hand and you seem to missing that point. When you explain the distinction (and how it applies to your point), I will discuss further with you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of primary justification of the bombing. A very serious violation of NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is a main article does not mean the summary should not be balanced -- see WP:SPINOUT.

For now though, I'll just say this is way too long for a summary. I've been considering adding an {{Off-topic|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}} banner, and I may yet ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidhekin, for a new user with less than 500 edits, you sure know your way around wikipedia and know wikipolicy. 4th edit, 7th edit
On an unrelated note, I strongly suspect that a couple of the conservative regulars, and Zer0faults, who used to edit here, are still editing here as socks. Checkuser is a weapon used by many of the conservative editors here, maybe the other side can start investigating these users. Trav (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do instead of making insinuations. The only proven sockpuppeter is Stone put to sky for which he is now blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please Trav, chill. Sidhekin - who I've only just encountered in the last couple hours - seems like a thoughtful editor and nothing else. Paranoia and cries for Checkuser are not helpful. At this point this article is only a battleground if we make it that way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an old hand on various forums; old enough to know how to lurk for a while before entering the spotlight: My first edit was in 2006. Add my edits on other wikis, in particular as no:Bruker:Sidhekin, and take into account that I've mostly worked with copy-editing, categorizing, and cleaning up (mis-)use of templates, and it may be less surprising. :) I haven't run into socks until I added this article to my watchlist though, so I'll reserve judgment on that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidhekin thanks for keeping a level head, this talk page can inspire great levels of vitriol and anger unfortunately, but I for one appreciate your contributions here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also Ultramarine has still not differentiated for me the "traditional" and "revisionist" approach to the a-bomb as described in the source. I need to understand that this user understands this distinction before pursuing the discussion in this threat. We are talking about serious scholarship here and I need to know that Ultra had engaged with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguments supporting and critical was not presented fairly with only the explanation from the "revisionists", "to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union", being presented.Ultramarine (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the last paragraph of the section. Why would you guess the "revisionist" argument was introduced? Answer: it was introduced to contradict the "state terror" argument. I don't think you are reading that passage closely. The passage is citing a fairly left academic POV to argue against another left POV that is well outside the mainstream (and if you did not notice that then we should not be discussing this point). Do you really have a problem with that? I think it makes your case fairly well. If you want a quoted description of the "traditional" school before that I'm all for it, but again please re-read the last paragraph (in the context of this article, not the one on the a-bomb).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it was only an left-left disscusion, then it was POV to not include some more right or centrist views.Ultramarine (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So if we fully explicate the "traditional" view you would be fine with that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly mention the view that to not have bombed would have caused far more deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In historiographical terms, what is the "traditional" view of Hiroshima. What is the "revisionist" view? Please answer directly. In order to answer this question you will have to have vague knowledge of the scholarship on the a-bomb as used by the US during WWII. Please answer directly. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask the same questions to you.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you are joking. I'm trying to determine your knowledge of the scholarship in question given that I provided the key source for the passage we are discussing (footnote 165, Walker, J. Samuel (2005-April). "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground". Diplomatic History 29 (2): 312. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.). I don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to these questions and am asking you to prove otherwise. "I ask the same questions to you" is a pretty poor comeback. The question of "revisionist" vs. "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bomb was heavily discussed in an earlier thread for god sake. Give me a sense of what you know about that debate or move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. What is important is that the article follows Wikipedia policies, not claims by anonymous editors.Ultramarine (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the non sequitur and please differentiate the "revisionist" vs. "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bomb question. That's what I am trying to engage you on in order to make some progress.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No double standard, do it yourself. I will shortly add a text having many sources. If you want to dispute these views, you can always add more yourself.Ultramarine (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do what myself? Honestly I don't know what you are talking about, and the term "double standard" was not mentioned until you mentioned it.

I'll take it though that you are unfamiliar with the very basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question (given your utter lack of response to previous questions) and that you therefore probably are not well informed on these issues. And in that way this certainly has been a revealing conversation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is still not a valid argument. I will add sourced material. If you want to criticize this, feel free to add more sourced material.Ultramarine (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there - "Ad hominem is still not a valid argument."

But I would still ask (so we don't get confused): What, as you see it, is the basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question? This is very much a question of interpretation so I would appreciate your opinion so we can move forward on this issue. Discussing this point with you is important to me if we are to ever achieve consensus on this section. If you are not familiar with the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bombing of Japan that's fine, however I would like to know that from the outset.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will provide sourced statements. If you want argue with them, provide your own sourced. Claims by anonymous Wikipedia editors are uninteresting.Ultramarine (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well of course, but what about the claims already cited in footnotes 165-66? And what about the basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question? It's a simple question if you are even tangentially connected to the scholarship and I'd love to hear more of your specific thoughts on this question. Not "sourced statements." Your own thoughts. This is an effort to engage with you Ultra. Probably my last.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and policy prevent it being used as such.Ultramarine (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources supporting that the US predicted much greater American and Japanese casualties from continuing the war rather than bombing: [7][8][9]Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that people advocate that if we can justify 9/11 it is not an act of terrorism?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no agreed on definition on what terrorism is which makes the question difficult to answer. The issue here is presenting the arguments from both sides regarding why the bombs was dropped.Ultramarine (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nomen, I'm afraid you do not understand correctly in terms of this conversation. You've been around awhile, so put a little more thought into your comments please. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I do not understand this threat. Why exactly are we discussing a possible justification for dropping two atomic bombs?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See below.Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulra, that is not what this article or section tries to do--a pro/con on dropping the bomb. We already have an article on that debate/subject. Support for the bombings or non-support of it, has nothing to do with whether they constituted state terrorism or not. Thus, arguments about saving American lives and hence being justified under some such criteria, is completely off topic and irrelevant to the issue of it being state terrorism or not. The two are not mutually exclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur, as my first comment tried to suggest.:)Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article include material on why the bomb was dropped. But gives only a biased presentation favoring the interpretation that they were dropped to intimidate the Soviet Union. NPOV requires the inclusion of the more common view that is was to prevent both American and Japanese casualities. Added two more sources: [10][11][12][13][14]Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, the articles does not argue for or against the bombing. It presents the reasons for the claims of those who argue it was state terrorism, and cites factual material that is not in dispute, i.e. the targeting committees choice of a heavily populated civilian center to make a psychological impact. This is the basis of the reasoning for the claims about why its terrorism--NOT why it should or should not have been used. That is an off topic issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the bombs was dropped "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." It violates NPOV to not include the more common view that they were dropped to save both American and Japanese lives.Ultramarine (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The article does not state that the "bombs were dropped primarily for...."I would explain it to you however, based on your going around in circles above, I don't have much hope in your understanding my attempts.

I gave a direct quote. The article does not mention to more common explanation at all, violating NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

State Terrorism AND the United States

Everyone knows this current title sucks. Just read it (medium-long pause while you read). Right. Too long, too strange, too unencylopedic. Obviously a legitimate topic, but it needs a better title/focus as most all of us would agree.

Back last summer when there was a huge deletion debate and ensuing discussion that actually drew a lot of good editors into the conversation, the title was a serious sticking point until we settled on the current version (sans the word "committed" I believe). Around that time an editor I did not know (and have never interacted with since I think) e-mailed me and suggested the title "State Terrorism and the United States." Via e-mail, I rejected that suggestion at the time because the "and" made the topic seem too broad.

But now I completely disagree with myself. "State Terrorism and the United States" seems to me a good way to proceed with the content we have here--i.e. expand the topic by using "and" instead of "by." The article would be an NPOV (obviously) discussion of the terms "state terrorism" and "United States" as they relate to one another. Here's a possible outline as I see it:

State Terrorism and the United States

• I. Intro
• II. General definitions of "state terrorism" from various parties in an NPOV fashion
• III. United States government definitions of "state terrorism" (throughout history, not just in the present)
• IV. US accusations of "state terrorism" committed by other nations

  A. From governmental sources

  B. From academic or other expert sources from the U.S.

• V. Accusations that the U.S. committed state terrorism

  A. From governmental sources

  B. From academic or other expert sources (U.S. or elsewhere)

• VI. Brief general discussion, further sources, etc.

Obviously most of the current article would be contained within point V (or 5...or possibly five) but that's fine. I think most of the content here could be easily transplanted into an article along these lines, we would just have to make the content quite a bit tighter in terms of wording, sourcing, etc.

Anyhow this is a fairly long term suggestion (or not if we want to be bold!), but I do hope editors think about this possibility in the future. I'm gonna have to (temporarily) absent myself from this page very soon to work on my own shit, but feel free to drop my a line on my talk page if you like. Also I'll be checking back on this and the above comment (not the CANF thing or the Hiroshima thing, the one before that) in the next coupla days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember WP:OR. Accusations of terrorism must include links accusing the US of terrorism. As for now this article is simply a dumping ground where anonymous editors have added links accusing the US of numerous things but not terrorism or state terrorism. Not allowed per WP:SYN.Ultramarine (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but you did not respond to my comment which was quite specific.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, "State Terrorism AND the United States" implies proven acts when most if just very dubious allegations. A better title would be "criticisms of United States foreign policy".Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I know where you stand, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this title change as I can see the article could be quite large, but I do see it as another potential article, modeled after the book by the same title. As of now I'm in fine with the existing one we have, or a title that discusses factual claims of State Terrorism by the US. I do strongly disagree with Ultramarine, whose suggestion would effectively drown out the specific focus that this article's subject looks at: state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is the least of this article's problems. In fact, I kinda like how it is an entire family of articles:

• Allegations of Iranian state terrorism
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

I would not want to change one without changing the others. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States/Archive_15#Renaming the article Enough said. Why are you arguing about moving the article Big? It is pointless. Last time I just moved it. Trav (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I guess I love tilting at windmills, though I think this is still kinda a new suggestion in its specifics. And to Sidhekin, the titles of the articles you list all stem from this one - and if it's a family it's one that nobody really likes. I think all should be changed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Including "state terrorism" just attracts people with an axe to grind. Makes using sources difficult since few mentions "state terrorism" even if there are various criticisms. An article instead using "criticisms" solves this.Ultramarine (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok - its at least twice where you have tried to make the ridiculous: a dumping ground where anonymous editors have added links accusing the US of numerous things but not terrorism or state terrorism "argument". 1) How many of the recently contributing eidtors are 'anonymous'? 2) Even so, where in the policy do you see the forbidding of contributions by anonymous editors? 3) Which of the points in the article is currently unsourced? Such completely bogus arguements really impact my ability to WP:AGF in your presence here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim they do.Ultramarine (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another specious line of argument that: "every" source must mention state terrorism. Not at all true or supported by WP policies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lists numerous claimed human rights violations in foreign nations without claiming that this was terrorism. Sometimes not even mentioning the US at all but only the foreign government. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim that these violations are the responisbility of the US and are terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up a new structure for the article, BTP. I was hoping for more suggestions like that from the recent RFC. One other option would be, now that the criticism section has some sourcing, to bring that up to follow the "definitions" section. Then we would have the begining ofthe article discussing the overall 'conceptual frameworks' for US State terrorism, followed by a list of specific examples. Which could perhaps be spun off to a seperate list of examples article, thus addressing concerns people have voiced about the length of this article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly would be to actually have sources for specific claims. The article lists numerous claimed human rights violations in foreign nations without claiming that this was terrorism or state terrorism. Sometimes not even mentioning the US at all but only the foreign government. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim that these violations are the responsibility of the US and are terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BT for attempting to make a constructive suggestion and laying it out clearly. However I have to admit that I have problems with the suggestion, being aware of the sheer size of the literature on U.S. complicity in state terrorism and the current glaring absence of sections on Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, Palestine Territories, among others. Moreover, the state department terrorism list, including accusations against countries like Cuba are far from uncontroversial and have elicited a notable stream of criticism. These themes are best treated in separate articles. Basically I think what you are proposing is perhaps too much of an artificial fix, is too long and would only dilute all subject matter contained therein. I do not have a major problem with the current title, perhaps partly because I understand "allegations" in a figurative sense and not a legal sense. Although I wonder if anyone has previously entertained substituting the word "accusations" for "allegations?" At the moment I see no other option more viable than continued discussion with closer reference to the literature on the subject. We should be comparing different definitions in the literature more thoroughly for guidance as to what evidence falls under the rubric of state terrorism. This is hard work, I do not think that even many established editors have really taken a serious look at the literature, but I think it is ultimately necessary if we are to arrive at a NPOV article deriving from reliable sources. The definitional scope of the article should flow from the literature, we have little power as editors to set it arbitrarily. Since that literature includes indirect support or "surrogate terrorism" as an important theme and there is currently confusion about associated issues perhaps it is worth revisiting and discussing that particular aspect of the definitional scope. Finally, I think your proposal seems to stem from an impression that the article is too POV and is an attempt to provide a fix. Those are worthy intentions. However, I am not yet convinced that there is not sufficient balancing material in the literature directly related to state terrorism. As far as I know no one has really done the legwork in this area. I do have a couple of good leads, but I have not had the time to revisit them being as I am currently overwhelmed by work and school.BernardL (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To RedPenofDoom, offering my opinion as an established editor I think the "Opposing Views" section is far from well-sourced and is very problematic. Much of it's after-the-fact apologetics are only tenuously related to the subject of the article. I do not have time to go into detail about my many objections. Certainly a very thorough discussion and analysis of that section is required. BernardL (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly better than most of the article, see my comment above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Bernard, Agreed that the criticisms section has not recieved the editorial scrutiny of much of the rest of the article - but I think as a concept for the organization of the article, it has potential. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I think it's an excellent idea. I have only three comments:

A) If it turns out that the page gets expanded into multiple, hard-to-maintain pages that come under constant threat of AfD, then we return to the current one.

B) Parity be maintained in the accusations. For instance, while it is true that the U.S. has leveled accusations of State Terror against other states, it would be absurd if we were to see some editors here insist upon an expansion of the allegations made against Iran into a ten page article while demanding that a two-paragraph mention of El Salvador is too long. Considering the shameless lengths some have gone to, here, towards skewing the POV of this article i have no doubt that such shenanigans will be attempted.

C) That we maintain most of the information in the various sections here. I am not averse to introducing these things as links or re-negotiating formats and titles, but the information here -- as well-sourced as it is -- should not be pared down willy-nilly simply because someone things the article is too long. The information should be maintained.

Since we are dealing with a matter of international law then i think BTP's suggestions are clearly an improvement. As my mammy used to say, it takes two to tango. One cannot have a plaintiff without also having a defendant, and academic logic stipulates that both sides be given fair voice. So long as both sides are given fair treatment i, for one, have no problems with this proposal. 118.165.216.211 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

The following was removed by Ultramarine:

Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo

In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." The complaint initiated a firestorm of controversy because Gen. Gramajo was, at the time of the complaint's submission, attending Harvard University by invitation after having given that year's commencement speech at the SOA. Sister Ortiz stated that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel (i.e. men who would have been under Gramajo's command) and taken to a secret prison where she was tortured and raped repeatedly. Sister Ortiz has given formal testimony on several occasions, beginning with a 1992 report to the United Nations General Assembly. A short excerpt from Sister Ortiz's description of her ordeal follows:

When the men returned, they had a video camera and a still camera. The policeman put a machete into my hands. Thinking it would be used against me, and at that point in my torture wanting to die, I did not resist. But the policeman put his hands onto the handle, on top of mine, and forced me to stab the woman again and again...

The policeman asked me if I was now ready to talk, and one of the other torturers...mentioned that they had just filmed...me stabbing the woman. If I refused to cooperate, their boss, Alejandro, would...turn the videotapes and the photographs over to the press.... This was the first I had heard of Alejandro, the torturers’ boss....

The policeman raped me again. Then I was lowered into a pit full of bodies— bodies of children, men, and women, some decapitated, all caked with blood. A few were still alive. I could hear them moaning. Someone was weeping. I didn’t know if it was me or somebody else. A stench of decay rose from the pit. Rats swarmed over the bodies and were dropped onto me as I hung suspended over the pit by the wrists. I passed out and when I came to I was lying on the ground beside the pit, rats all over me.

The nightmare I lived was nothing out of the ordinary. In 1989, under Guatemala’s first civilian president in years, nearly two hundred people were abducted. Unlike me, they were "disappeared, gone forever." The only uncommon element of my ordeal was that I survived, probably because I was a U.S. citizen, and phone calls poured into Congress when I was reported missing. As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers

I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, "Are you an American?" In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: "Why do you want to know?" Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: "Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!"

And a voice had responded "Shit!" in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. "Idiots!" he said. "She’s a North American nun." He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country.

For the duration of the trip, I spoke to him in English, which he understood perfectly. He said he was concerned about the people of Guatemala and consequently was working to liberate them from Communism. Alejandro told me to forgive my torturers because they had confused me with Veronica Ortiz Hernandez. It was an honest mistake.

— Dianna Ortiz, Speak Truth

Sister Ortiz has recounted this same story, in formal testimony, on several occasions. Sister Ortiz's testimony initiated a wave of public investigation and scrutiny into the CIA's activities in Guatemala.

Trav (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See earlier discussions. The US was not responsible for this crime and the sister does not make such an allegation.Ultramarine (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, I could care less. :) That is why I didn't even read the section, just cut and paste it here. We both know how I feel about how you delete content, so no need to touch on that again...Trav (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ciao

I've got a lot of other things I should be doing right now, and Ultramarine's utter unwillingness to discuss simple, basic, extremely concrete issues is all the excuse I need to get off this page. That user seems, to me at least, completely uninterested in the opinion of any other editor who disagrees with her or him. Ultramarine's renewed presence here provides more than enough impetus for me to de-watchlist this page. It is not even remotely worth my time to engage with any user who refuses to participate in rationale discussion or - more basically - to answer very simple questions.

Anyone editing here can feel free to contact me via e-mail, but in general I'm making it a point to avoid this page for the foreseeable future for my own reasons and for the basic fact that this unending conversation seems to be forever incapable of making progress in terms of making this page a good encyclopedia article. Ultramarine's presence is only the latest (repeat) manifestation of that.

In the interim, I hope all goes well. Peace!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.Ultramarine (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read those, but of course you know that, and thus your comment says a lot more about you than me. I know it's practically impossible for you to avoid getting the last word in, so feel free to reply again here directing me to some other policy like WP:AGF or something else with which we are all obviously familiar. If you can avoid further comment in this thread I'll be mildly impressed. Good night and good luck and goodbye.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. State Department's definition

The text quoted includes "The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983." I don't think this is part of their definition, but rather just commentary. I suspect it was brought along by a cut-and-paste error, and I propose to delete this sentence. (I don't see that those "statistical and analytical purposes" have any place in the article as-is.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Regan claimed that the U.S. government is hypocritical"

Why should we care what Tom Regan claims?

While his arguments may be interesting in this context, and may well be worth including, his person and claims are less so.

I propose that we delete this section as it stands. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a seperate subsection, but it does seem to be a supplemental view point distinct from the one illuminated by the Chomsky quote. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Point. It follows the Chomsky/Windschuttle sequence naturally (which was not obvious to me as I read section by section). However: This sequence, in turn, does not readily belong under the heading "U.S. government's own definitions". So perhaps put all of Chomsky/Windschuttle/Regan in this subsection instead?

I guess if the opinions of an American linguist and an Australian historian qualify, an American philosopher might as well. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But then, why is the Chomsky/Windschuttle exchange presented under the heading "Definition of state terrorism"? It's not about definitions at all. Let me ponder this some more. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Chomsky/Windschuttle material does not really fit under that section header - although it seems very choppy to just end the section after the Chomsky indented {quote} and then start again with him in a new section. If we take BigTimePeace's suggestion of re-visiting the overall structure of the whole article - there may be a better context for that material. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible replacement for the Windschuttle passage

Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has challenged this:

In [Chomsky's] response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists' actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot.

— Keith Windschuttle,

I'm not sure how I feel about that. Better than the current one though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If not the current text, then this. Should wikify Pol Pot.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like linking terms in direct quotes. Worse, unless there is a good reason to do it, it's policyguidelines to avoid it: WP:MOSQUOTE. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing immediately notable about the Windschuttle article linked to is that it does not come even close to meeting the most elementary scholarly standards. It clips "quotes" from Chomsky profusely but makes no effort at all to indicate in which Chomsky books and on which pages these "quotes" are to be found. The reader is being actively deterred from checking the original quotes and their contexts.BernardL (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the WP:BLP policy is in effect here...and Windschuttle is making exceptional claims about Chomsky's views and scholarship (ie: that Chomsky favoured communist regimes and casts all sorts of aspersions against Chomsky's scholarship without adequate sourcing and without serious consideration of Chomsky's actual arguments and positions (as opposed to selective distortions of them) the Windschuttle material is inadmissable for the article, or anywhere on wikipedia except for the entry on Windschuttle. BernardL (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure WP:BLP applies? I haven't yet found wikipedia's definition of "biographical material", but to me at least, neither the Windschuttle passage of today nor its suggested replacement qualify as such. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not apply. Not an attack on his persons but his writings.Ultramarine (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would it not apply? Of course it does. It applies to all negative claims about all living persons anywhere in WP. The point is to protect people from damaging defamatory claims. Thus, any such claims must come from exceptionally reliable sources that whose claims are verifiable. The Widnschutle article is of rather low quality, and makes some serious claims without much verification.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It criticizes his writings. BLP does not apply. Does not say he is an idiot, ugly, or has a bad smell, or something similar.Ultramarine (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Why should it not apply?" Because WP:BLP applies to "biographical material" only. Not to "all negative claims". It seems to me this is one "negative claim" that is not "biographical material". But I cannot (yet) find what WP means with "biographical material"; it may well be using some definition that differs from mine. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us also note that Windschuttle is a respected historian. The New Criterion which published the article is a respected journal.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, if we say BLP applies, it should also apply to others, not just Chomsky. How about "Arroyo's repressive taxation", "Arroyo's ascendancy was characterized by rampant human rights violations", etc? Surely those are "negative claims" about Arroyo. I don't think we want to go down that slippery slope. Let's read "biographical material" a little more narrowly. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered my other major point, which was that Windschuttle is making exceptional claims (hypocrite, commie-dictator lover, bad scholarship) but that Windschuttle's article is in fact shoddy scholarship. Chomsky is being "quoted" and his views are being represented all over the place in that article - how many footnotes or references do you see? [[15]]. Verification failure.BernardL (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is there to answer? Of course it is shoddy scholarship! So are most of our sources, including the Chomsky ones! How many footnotes do you see in [16] or [17]? Shoddy scholarship is not sufficient reason not to reference nor even quote a source. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is in this case. Its making exceptional disparaging claims against a living person, thus the source, in order to sustain such claims, must be of exceptionally high quality. This one fails miserably. Saying that other sources likewise fail is not a logical defense.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Windschuttle is a respected historian. The New Criterion which published the article is a respected journal. The statements is not about Chomsky's personal biography, so BLP does not apply.Ultramarine (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, others' failure is not a defence, but you'll note I didn't defend it: I quite agreed it is shoddy scholarship. I just don't see that that in itself is, or even should be, of any consequence to us. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is actually quite a stretch to call Windschuttle a respected historian. The great majority of historians of Aboriginee/early Austrailian history do not respect him. (for example [[18]], or Telling the Truth about Aboriginal History. Contributors: Bain Attwood - author. Publisher: Allen & Unwin. Place of Publication: Crows Nest, N.S.W.. Publication Year: 2005.) Windschuttle is more of culture warrior a la David Horowitz than a "respected historian."BernardL (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is not a historian at all and not respected outside certain parts of the far left.Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course! the far leftists at West Point Academy philosophy department invited to him to lecture on the subject of "Just War theory and the Invasion of Iraq." [[19]] Earlier, the far leftists at the University of Cape Town invited him make the Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom. and the far leftists at the University of Edinburgh asked to Chomsky to join a list of prestigious lecturers - "among the many gifted lecturers are Hannah Arendt, Niels Bohr, Etienne Gilson, Werner Heisenberg, William James, Max Mueller, Iris Murdoch, Reinhold Niebuhr, Albert Schweitzer and Alfred North Whitehead" to deliver the Gifford Lectures where he delivered the speech "Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times.” [[20]] We could also consider that for the literature related to this particular topic he is often cited as a pioneer. I would be glad to roll out the quotes from major academic studies if you like. Or we could simply consider the fact that a new peer reviewed journal certainly germane to our topic here, "Critical Studies on Terrorism" includes Chomsky on its editorial board. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t780786797~tab=editorialboard BernardL (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of your claims are unsourced and some of the sources do not support what you state. Obviously Chomsky has some supporters. I will just point out that on his webpage he has an article lamenting that he is widely ignored in political sciene.[21].Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which specific claims are you disputing? I said I could roll out the quotes if that's what you want. Are you disputing that Chomsky was invited to West Point to talk as part of their Distinguished Lectures Series? Here is the U.S. Military Academies press release. [[22]]. Regarding being described as a pioneer in the relevant literature, there's as just one example, the volume Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000) edited by Jeffrey A. Sluka wherein the introduction states: "At the end of the 1970's, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of a new "global epidemic" of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey (ed) Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, p.8)"BernardL (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is great quote. I wonder if we can find a home for it in this article, or maybe on a Chomsky specific related article--or both?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is an excellent quote and should be used. Where? Here are some possibilities that come to mind: 1. in the lead following the Arno Mayer quote; 2. or we could use a lead paragraph to the Central America section that could include this quote as well as references to U.S. led inter-state coordination of terrorism as have been described by J. Patrice McSherry and Greg Grandin, among others. 3. or we could have a section about the literature (critical terrorology, etc), describing significant works in the field which would augment the references section. Any other ideas? BernardL (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, I like 3) - that would help move the article to something other than a list of case studies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan section's "main article"

Currently, the "main article" linked from the Japan section is Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I propose to replace this link with one to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is a context of (alleged) terrorism. As such, someone who wants to know more about the bombings likely wants to see it argued in detail whether or not the bombings were terrorism. But the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't provide that detail: It merely summarizes the matter, and redirects the reader to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for detail.

It would be better if we spared the reader this detour and linked to the detail ourselves. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)— the Sidhekin (talk)

Amnesty and HRW accusing the US of state terrorism?

The article under a the title "The Political Nature of the Arrests, Disappearances, Torture, and Killings" states "Amnesty International reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution." The AI report continues: "the arrest and threatened arrest of leftist Congress Representatives and others on charges of rebellion, and intensifying counter-insurgency operations in the context of a declaration by officials in June of 'all-out-war' against the New People's Army . . . [and] the parallel public labeling by officials of a broad range of legal leftist groups as communist 'front organizations'...has created an environment in which there is heightened concern that further political killings of civilians are likely to take place.|Amnesty International|"

First, not a NPOV description since Amnesty also notes human rights violations by the insurgents. Amnesty never mentions the US in the report so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. It violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does our article claim that Amnesty is accusing the US of state terrorism? All I can see we say is it "reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature".

Where does our article argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US? I cannot find it.

I may agree, for now, to tag this section {{Off-topic}} or {{Off-topic|Allegations of state terrorism by the Philippines}} (yeah, I know it'd be a red link). But before we do anything of the sort, I'd like to hear someone argue for it being on the topic of the article. That is, if anyone is willing to? — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No response, Removed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing it is not what I would agree to. It seems you are currently the only one arguing for removing it: Hardly consensus. Reverted.

But yeah, no one has stepped up to argue that it is on the topic of the article, so I've marked it {{Off-topic}} for now. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another section: "According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.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.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

The sources do not claim US responsibility for all of these these crimes. It violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US using other sources. Since this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please give WP:SYN a rest: while such claims would be SYN violations, I don't see our article making them.

Again, I might agree to marking it {{Off-topic}} or, again with the redlinks, {{Off-topic|Allegations of state terrorism committed by El Salvador}}. Don't go deleting it until defenders of it have spoken up or have been given plenty time to speak up; we're still on no deadline. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I will probably make some comments about this in the near future, once other matters are dealt with. As far as I know Stone Put to the Sky wrote this section and he will probably be back soon.BernardL (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi-ho. Once again, i will repeat what is obvious: there is no wikipedia guideline that states any article can only be limited to sources which use the phrase outlined in its title. Ultramarine will respond to me on this by claiming that if they don't then the sources are off-topic. However, if we were to follow such logic then the first section of the article about First_Battle_of_Bull_Run would look something like this:

Background

McDowell's plan was to move westward in three columns, make a diversionary attack on the Confederate line at Bull Run with two columns, while the third column moved around the Confederates' right flank to the south, cutting the railroad to Richmond and threatening the rear of the rebel army. He assumed that the Confederates would be forced to abandon Manassas Junction and fall back to the Rappahannock River, the next defensible line in Virginia, which would relieve some of the pressure on the U.S. capital.[4]

The Confederate Army of the Potomac (21,883 effectives[5]) under Beauregard was encamped near Manassas Junction, approximately 25 miles (40 km) from the United States capital. McDowell planned to attack this numerically inferior enemy army.

McDowell searched for a way to outflank Beauregard, who had drawn up his lines along Bull Run. On July 18, the Union commander sent a division under Brig. Gen. Daniel Tyler to pass on the Confederate right (southeast) flank. Tyler was drawn into a skirmish at Blackburn's Ford over Bull Run and made no headway.

McDowell had delayed long enough that Johnston's Valley force was able to board trains at Piedmont Station and rush to Manassas Junction to reinforce Beauregard's men.[6]

On July 19 and July 20, significant reinforcements bolstered the Confederate lines behind Bull Run.

And that would be it.

Obviously, the article as it currently stands is much better. Likewise, the arguments being used to support efforts to delete information from this article clearly do not help in making it better in any way: neither more informative, nor effective, nor more neutral in its presentation. This is simply a ploy to get content deleted from the article: nothing else. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with the Bull Run article, discuss is there. Again, it violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US if the material does not. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Bull Run article. There is something wrong with your arguments, which are opposed across the board by virtually every other editor here. Stone put to sky (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is something wrong with your arguments" What? Ultramarine (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, most of this page consists of people refuting your arguments, and doing so very effectively. If you want to know the problems with your arguments then i suggest you read the responses of the people posting here opposite you. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no response to my arguments in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there clearly has been, and if you really are trying to foist that assertion off on us it does call into question WP:AGF. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no response except your strange reference to the Bull Run article. For convenience, I will repeat my point regarding the Amnesty material. First, not a NPOV description since Amnesty also notes human rights violations by the insurgents. Amnesty never mentions the US in the report so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. It violates WP:OR and WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, AI and HRW I

Ultramarine, these arguments you are using are the same ones that have been refuted a bazillion times before. You always say "WP:SYN"; wheezyF, above, just showed you why its wrong. I have already responded to these precise accusations of yours above, at length. The only difference between this time and the last is that you are pretending as if i haven't already addressed them -- but i have, gio has, bernard l has, BTP has, wheezyF has, and that's not even including all of the other times in archive where the same arguments have been made and -- each time -- received the same response:

It is not necessary for each article to include the claim that the United States is guilty of state terrorism. This is a false interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines that is not supported anywhere, by anyone, for any reason. It is entirely your own artificial, personal interpretation of how you wish things were.

The AI and HRW articles are included to validate that the events in question did, indeed, occur and are attested to by third party, neutral sources. That's all. They are relevant to the article (and this is addressed to Sidhekin) for the simple reason that lots of people are unaware of what's going on outside of their own native countries and may not have read or been taught about the events in question. These sources are necessary background that establishes unequivocally that the events being talked about did, indeed, occur. That's all. They are necessary in the same way that, for instance, when one is discussing the idea of Light as it propagates through Space one might need to briefly explain what a vaccuum is and how that relates to electro-magnetic radiation. Or perhaps one might need to explain radiation itself, and then elaborate what sort of radiation Light is. These sources have the same relationship: they establish that there are definitive historical records that establish the events in question actually have happened as described in the article.

Meanwhile, we have many other sources which state that these events can be characterized as State Terror by the United States. As such, there is no "synthesis" taking place. All we have done is provide third-party, NPOV explanations of the events referred to by those making the accusations of state terrorism. These sources make no arguments one way or the other about the instances of State Terror, but they are necessary to establish the background of the events in question. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This particular point has been explained to you repeatedly. You are wrong, and if you persist in this behavior i will take it to AN/I. Too many editors have explained this to you, already, for me to believe that my words will have any effect on your behavior. I will explain it to you one more time:

Synthesis involves direct argumentation on the part of the editor. The editor states "This source says the Sky is Blue", then says "This other source over here says The Blues are Sadness." And then concludes "The Sky, therefore, is Sad."

These sources you are contesting do not operate in that way. The first source says: "The United States is guilty of sponsoring State Terrorism because it has supported, trained, and aided the Philippine Military and is either complicit or shares direct responsibility for acts of terror perpetrated against the Philippine people, such as 890 people murdered, thousands threatened, beaten or imprisoned, etc, all during the time period from 2002 to 2007." Then source B says "From 2002 to 2007, it appears that the Philippine Military was responsible for 840 murders and the imprisonment and threatening of untold thousands more. This is the evidence."

That's not editorial synthesis. That's one source saying one thing, and then another source corroborating the statements made in the first source. Or, in the language of the guideline you quote above: the sources cited explicitly reach the same conclusion and are directly related to the subject of the article.

This has already been explained to you at great length. Please take it to heart and desist from these fruitless edit wars you have lately been provoking.

Finally, i will remind you also that your attempted edits have introduced more POV skew to the article -- not less. Your choice of words has clearly been undertaken, in each case, to cast the maximum doubt upon the content that follows. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stringing together two such statements if just what WP:SYN prohibits.Ultramarine (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi, Mr Ultra! He's explained himself and you've got the hard head. There's no stringing I can see! The guidelines go ranting on all randy about saying the same thing and you're drinking what? One says 890 dead + state terror, the other says 890 dead confirmed. Where's the problem, mate? Aho aho (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Do not make another personal attack. The Amnesty source does not mention the US, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. Implying that in fact the US is responsible for the crimes described by Amnesty is WP:OR and WP:SYN.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gawr. As clear as mud. Stone, you sound like an old woman. Aho aho (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...are you saying that you don't understand, either?

And please lay off the...uhhh...personal "characterizations", o.k? I'm not in the mood to be dealing with sarcasm. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi. Don't get shirty, Stone, I'm only teasing. Yeh, I understand. Is it always this way around here? Aho aho (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Windschuttle, take 1

I've just committed my suggested #Possible_replacement_for_the_Windschuttle_passage.

While no one seems to be happy with it, no one (except possibly Ultra?) seemed to prefer the old version, and no one argued for keeping the old version.

Disclaimer: This is not some kind of "final" consensus version; the consensus seems just that this version is an improvement on the previous one. I expect the discussion will continue, whether or not to reference The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky at all.

Thank you! — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

{{main}}

The way this article uses {{main}} is consistent with documentation. The docs may be difficult to navigate, but if you take the time, you'll find it is intended to mark sections as WP:SUMMARY style, er, summaries of other articles. See for instance Wikipedia:LAY#If_a_section_is_a_summary_of_another_article.

With one possible exception (see below), this is not how this article's sections read, and I don't think rewriting them as such would be feasible, nor even desirable.

I propose that we use {{seealso}} for these sections instead.

The one possible exception is {{main|Operation Gladio}}; I have just skimmed it so am not deep enough to say yet. But even this would at least need cleaning up in order to follow the WP:SUMMARY style guidelines.

While we're at it, we could also consider whether to replace the use of {{further}} with {{seealso}}, for a more consistent look, if nothing else. (Note that while {{seealso}} does indeed support multiple articles, it uses parameters differently from {{further}}, so a dumb global replace will not be a good idea.). — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Dispute

Earlier I removed the POV dispute tag as no discussion was taking place and, atleast to me, the article appears to be NPOV, siting sources and just cataloging what the subject is about. The POV dispute tag was replaced with no discussion started. I'm starting the discussion now so the tag doesn't just sit there for no reason or purpose. This user feels that the current state of the article is NPOV per wikipedia standards, as it discusses both sides and cites sources. A reminder is needed to let people who read it know that just because an article leans to one side or the other doesn't mean it is POV, it just means that our encylopedic cataloging of it is following its sources. Hooper (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussing both sides and citing sources is not sufficient for NPOV. In fact, it is hardly relevant:

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

"Fairly"? That's tricky for any article. Are all significant views on these claims "fairly" represented? Who's to say what is "fair" representation?

"Proportionately"? That's even trickier, with a subject as geographically divisive as this. Is the view that what the US is not involved in terrorism really proportionately represented? How can we tell?

"Without bias"? Yeah right. Like using the section heading "U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism" is "without bias"? Like the selection of quotes with which we represent Sister Dianna Ortiz's and General Gramajo's respective sides of their case is "without bias"? Hardly.

The article is said to have been started by POV pushers. Much has happened since then, but the AfD, peer review, and archives up to and including the most recent clearly show POV is still discussed.

If we're not at it currently, it's just because there are so many problems with this article, we cannot tackle them all at once.

(Me, I have a few walls of text I want to break down. In due time though.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Apparently, if it is not possible to outright ban opposing viewpoints, then the next measure is to call every word of the actual guideline into question, no?

The NPOV guideline seems to work very well for people who would like to delete content from this article. I find it odd that, when applying that guideline in a neutral manner, Sidhekin feels compelled to reduce it to a lexical, word-by-word analysis that rejects every common usage of the chosen words.

What gives? Stone put to sky (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia: Be Bold!

I have moved the page to a more neutral, less POV and less weasel-word laden title.

I presume there will be no objections, but if there are i hope we will be able to work them out amicably on the discussion page.

Edit wars are, after all, a bad thing. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This title is more POV, not less; it presumes that the allegations are true. Jtrainor (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It simply states a subject -- State Terrorism -- and indicates that this discussion of the topic specifically concerns whatever relationships the United States might have to it. Nowhere in such a title is there any presumption of guilt or innocence. With the word "Allegations", however, there is clearly an implication of innocence or unsubtantiated claims. Moreover, the word "allegations" has caused a great deal of misunderstanding on this page. Some, apparently, have come to believe that, as a consequence of shifting the title to this phrase, all material presented here must and can only mention the phrase "State Terrorism", otherwise it is invalid.

That clearly is an artificial and baseless interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. I have been over those guidelines quite a few times, myself, and see nothing in them supporting such an interpretation. Basic high-school journalism or History class will teach a boy that any good article must answer the five questions: Who, what, where, when, and why.

Who: The U.S. and many academics, human rights groups, legal scholars, journalists, historians, governments and democratic institutions

What: Are engaged in public debate about whether or not the U.S. is guilty of committing acts of State Terror, whether through sponsorship, support of proxy actors, or direct participation.

Where: The U.S., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Venzeula, etc.

When: Various times.

Why: Many assert that various heinous acts of terrorism involving torture, mass murder or other forms of political violence have resulted from policies put in place by the U.S. The U.S. in some cases denies responsibility, in others is more willing to admit guilt, and in most denies the interpretation of "State Terror" or the term's legal value.

That's a properly NPOV article, and there is nothing in the current title that precludes us from writing it. The standards used by this current crop of deletionists, however, would see the article reduced to something more like this:

Who: Some Academics

What: Accuse the U.S. of State Terror

When: Various Times

Where: In their Universities.

Why: Because they are all communists, fools without any official political or military responsibility, isolated jerkwater navel-gazers, or people who hate the United States and everything they stand for.

That is precisely the aim of deleting such clearly relevant material as the Ortiz case, which is -- without a doubt -- on-topic, relevant to the discussion, useful for the reader, and presented in a dispassionate, NPOV fashion without any editorial comment or or skew whatsoever. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At first I was going to agree that it was more POV, but checking other pages on countries and state terrorism, it follows the same style they do. So I'm going to say okay, though it should of been discussed under a Rename tag first I'm sure. Hooper (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Objection #1: Other pages on countries and state terrorism follow the old pattern:

• Allegations of Iranian state terrorism
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Why single out the United States? Or is this just the first step?

• Objection #2: You've broken links! To the peer review, at least. And with the following move, courtesy Dance With The Devil, you two have created a double redirect, so Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is now broken. Sheesh!

• Objection #3: WP:BOLD applies primarily to editing articles, not moving them. This is what it has to say about moving articles: "The unintended consequences of certain significant changes can be more lasting, for better or for worse. This includes changes that are difficult to undo for technical reasons, like renaming the articles [...] Such edits are often warranted but please be sure you know what you are doing and feel free to ask for advice." Even so, see that tag on top of this talk page? "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Not after — before.

I agree that the old title was weasel-worded, and that the new one has potential. But the process is messed-up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection #1 is baseless - Wikipedia by it's very nature is not going to be consistant throughout and arguements based solely on 'consistnacy' are baseless. Ojecction #2 broken links can be fixed and are certainly not sufficient reason to keep an article under an objectionable name. Objection #3 may have some basis - it probably would have been a good thing to try to discuss beforehand, but no discussions on this page have really shown to come to any sort of concensus so alternative methods may indeed be a way to come to concensus - although WP:BRD should certainly be applicable.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that appears to be two rather guarded and mild approvals. I hope so, at least. I didn't have anything to do with Dance w/Devil's changes. I do suggest, however, that we get started on examining BTP's outline, above. I am in full support of his proposal, and since we obviously have a few people here who would like to add material and viewpoints that are more supportive of the United States then i think it would be good to help them create that space.

My suggestion is to create a new section: U.S. Condemnations of Other States. In it we will include, at first, Syria, Iraq, and Cuba. Hopefully there will be others here who are willing to provide sources for these sections? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that adding this would greatly expand this article. It will simply get much too big. Instead, why not have an article called, "US Condemnations of Other States?" It could include Iran, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc. More than enough for its own article. There is a lot of material already to fill up an article under its current--not expanded--scope. I think this article should remain about State Terrorism implicating the United States. That is, it discusses and reports on the various instances described by reliable and notable sources as State Terrorism committed by the United States. I agree the US condemsn other states and that is included already in this article, which makes the US hypocritical given its own support of State Terrorism. I would not be opposed to expanding that point here if we kept it very short, and having it link to the other article that documents all fo these instances, and discusses them.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wholeheartedly, i agree. However, i think it's best if we first develop that article here, in tandem with this one, and then when the page gets too big break it off to another link. It seems to me that would make the most sense for page maintenance, wouldn't it? Also, by operating in this fashion, we would -- in the future -- make an explicit case for using either page as a precedent when editing the other, no? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sidhekin. The current title applies as well to the US accusing other nations of sponsoring terrorism. I will start adding such material to the article if the title is kept.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, then. We're all in agreement. Please -- start adding material, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with his objections, if it was he who made them, the format above is unclear. I do not agree with the title. Regardless, all material not referncing "state terrorism" should be removed. Or should we start adding, for example, all of the crimes of Communist states criticized by the US to this page? 100 million deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like i said: you start introducing material, and we'll work on it with you. O.k? The only thing we ask is that you not clutter up the article with a work in progress. Since this is going to be a major edit we should start it in a sandbox. That being said, you have my personal word of honor that, once we've got solid sourcing and clear prose, i will fully back you up and get it posted on the main article. O.k.? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have yourself not followed this, for example your introduction of the Philippines section. Do you agree to remove it? Ultramarine (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are utterly incorrect. This last time, we had the Philippines section posted in sand-box for six entire weeks before we introduced it. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You added the very long material without prior discussion on the talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a diff? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[23].Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From July?! Let it go, please! — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there is no reason for any double standard regarding my edits, especially in a section citing WP:BOLD in its title. Back to the man argument. I do not agree with the title which allows both accusations by and against the US regarding "state terrorism". Regardless, all material not referencing "state terrorism" should be removed. Or should we start adding, for example, all of the crimes of Communist states criticized by the US to this page? 100 million deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One question:

If the FBI doesn't legally define terrorism through the U.S. Criminal Code, then who does?

Disney on Ice? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition given refers to the U.S. Criminal Code, but it does not quote it verbatim. Or is the prior reference in error?

So, where did we get the definition given, that here is attributed to the F.B.I.? Where indeed?

Disney on Ice? — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in any case: The U.S. Criminal Code can hardly be attributed to the FBI. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it can. No one is above the law, though many think they are.... Hooper (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you must have read "applied", or something along those lines, for "attributed". I was referring to "attribution" as in "authorship": Last I heard, FBI was no legislative power. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The original citation had ellipses at appropriate places. Since the code is written in "legalese", there is little reason to quote it verbatim. The intent is not to establish a legal argument but an academic one, and as such it is the intent of the law that is significant, not how it goes about closing every last legal loophole. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, this is not a version from the FBI? Don't attribute it to them, then. Attribute it to the U.S. Criminal Code, perhaps? Though frankly I don't think I like having the text rephrased and presented as a quote. If verbatim is not good; if we really need to rephrase it; why not drop the quote template and other quotation marks, and present it as our restatement of the Code? — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in any case, the FBI is the primary agency responsible for enforcing the U.S. Federal Code.

I am sure, Sidhekin, that if you did a quick search on "FBI U.S. Code terrorism" you'd find plenty of evidence to satisfy yourself. Oh! Whadd'ya know! 6,900 hits! Here's one, where the code itself states: "In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Director and approved by the Attorney General, the FBI police may...make arrests and otherwise enforce the laws of the United States, including the laws of the District of Columbia"

Or were you not aware that the U.S. Code constitutes "the laws of the United States"? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They enforce laws, yes. I never denied it. But FBI does not write nor pass laws, so no law should be attributed to them. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the law isn't attributed to them. All that is said is that this particular section of the U.S. Code outlines the FBI's basic definition of terrorism. Your request -- that we document the FBI does indeed use the U.S. code as its definition -- is, in that light, only an exercise in triviality. It's rather like demanding a source to validate the statement "Most policemen wear uniforms with badges". That is such a trivial statement most people wouldn't see a need for a source. This is a similar case. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is attributed to the FBI, as "Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition". Of course, that is my work, since I was the one who re-wrote that section using {{quote}} ...

Before my edit, however, the article stated "the Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] and reads as follows ...". If anything, this version is more adamant in attributing the definition to the FBI. According to this version, this is the FBI's definition — not the US Code, but merely based on it.

So someone seems to think this is the FBI definition. That someone appears not to have left a reference. I stand by my {{fact}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The current phrasing/attribution is less straightforward and clear than it should be. The FBI did not write the US code and it should not be listed as the source for the language of the statute itself. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight:

You change the wording of the phrase so that it's less comprehensible, and then ask other people to go out and establish sourcing for your own unclear (and incorrect) edit?

Why don't we just change it back to the former, correct wording, instead? If that "and" is too problematic then we'll just change it to a "which" and then there are no problems. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's anything but straight.

The former wording was not any more "correct". I don't want sourcing for my own edit. The edit was neither "incorrect" nor, in my opinion, unclear.

I want the source for the unsourced claim, present in both versions, that this is the FBI's definition.

Just replacing the "and" to "which" would make it incorrect, as that is not how the US Code reads.

If we are not to claim this is a definition specific to the FBI, but rather federal law, we should drop all mention of the FBI and just attribute it to the US Code. Or Congress, if you prefer. Either would be a good source, while FBI is anything but.

If this is to be presented, as it has been both before and after my edit, as the FBI's definition, and merely based on the US Code, we need a reference.

And that is straight. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "federal law definition" considering the FBI operates as a federal entity they would be governed by that law, however I do agree, it is not their law. Perhaps reworking as "definition per federal law in which all federal agencies including the FBI are to abide by". Sounds wordy. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "The definition the FBI uses is the one given in U.S. federal law, which reads" -- and yes, if the ellipses were put back into the places where they originally were then it would be correct.

Mention of the FBI is relevant because they are the main agency dealing with the investigation of domestic terrorism. While Federal Law applies across the board, it isn't the DEA or the BATF that goes around specifically chasing terrorists. That's supposed to be the job of the FBI (and in fact the murky division of responsibilities in this regard is why the "Homeland Security" office was created). Stone put to sky (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the FBI connection is relevant, it should be sourced; otherwise it is at best a WP:OR violation. You can argue all you want, but unless you find a source that argues the same, it is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.

I would ask, Sidhekin, that from now on any edits you make preserve the correct wording appropriate for the references provided. If you feel you must change the syntax into something that alters the basic relationship between the source and the wording provided then the community here will consider it your responsibility to provide appropriate sourcing. Otherwise, we will revert it. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job.

I'll decline the request though:

• My edit did not alter this basic relationship. Either way is an attribution to the FBI.
• The source was not provided prior to my edits, and I would have marked it {{fact}} either way.
• Revert my reformatting if you like; I'd just add a {{fact}} either way.
• Revert the {{fact}} if you like; I may just respond with removing the contested material, per WP:V. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your own words, the prior edit read like this:

"[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] and reads as follows ..."

Which (i suspect) originally read something more like this (but was changed somewhere along the line):

"[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] which reads as follows ..."

And then was followed by a summary of the laws. In that context, the definition is clearly stated to be based on the U.S. Code, and the citation which follows is clearly the code itself. No problem. In fact, i suspect that the FBI has a collection of guidelines that is quite long that, collectively, define "terrorism" for them. So quoting the code is clearly the most efficient and uncontroversial method, and that is what was used. Nowhere in the original quote was it suggested that the FBI has defined for itself "terrorism", and to do so would be ludicrous: terrorism is a legally defined term in the U.S. Code. Obviously, the FBI must follow the legal definition and cannot invent its own.

It was your edit -- not the original -- that was the problem. I'm not going to dwell on this, i just don't like it when editors come in and change things and then demand that other editors do the leg-work to correct their mistakes. I've had enough of that merry-go-round with people far less pleasant than you; i'm not interested in making the situation worse, i just want you to know that it's not appreciated. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem was whatever revision first attributed this to the FBI without source: Reverting my change would not suddenly produce a version without this problem. Why you keep accusing me of this, I cannot fathom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to sound like Ultramarine, now. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This section of the introduction...

Is clearly off topic:

Defenders of U.S. policy claim that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression, and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies.

This article does not treat "U.S. Policy" in general. It treats the concept of "State Terror" and how it applies to the United States. Consequently, this portion should be written something more along these lines:

People who defend the U.S.'s support for groups considered to be international terrorists or regimes which commonly utilize assassination, torture, and other forms of terrorism argue that these policies have been justified as a response to past Soviet aggression and continue to be justified as a response to terrorist groups.

Otherwise, it is clearly off-topic. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I care, we could just remove it. Justifications are off-topic either way: Justified terrorism is still terrorism.

I think your suggested replacement misses the point though: The original refers to American military interventions (such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Japan). Yours refers to something else. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then again, at least the second reference does not appear to be talking about "American military interventions" ... ? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

... or maybe it does, just not on the scale I first imagined. "Special Forces [...] training government troops" in other countries is a kind of "military interventioned", no? Bah. Good enough for its purpose, I suppose, if unclear (at least to me). Still off-topic to the article, in my opinion. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually i agree that it's off-topic. My point was just to show exactly how off-topic it actually is (by suggesting the only way i can think of to re-edit the sentence and bring it into line with the article theme).

I myself would much rather see a new section on U.S. condemnations of other countries and have a reference up there to that, instead.

In fact, now that we've got the name changed i think it might be a good idea to write a new intro and re-edit this one for inclusion later on in the article, as a heading for "Allegations Made Against the U.S." -- or some such section.

Contingent on consensus, of course. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to a new introduction. Does anyone want to start work on it? Sky seems to have disappeared for a little while - maybe Sidhekin could have a go? John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll have a go, partly because I'm more comfortable taking the role of a copy-editor than a writer, partly because I'm still not comfortable with the new wider scope of the article. I've been trying to tighten the article up, and then it's suddenly wider in scope?  :) I'll probably follow up, but I'm unlikely to take the lead, except for copy-editing. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that off topic sentence. Its very easy, I'll just remove it.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I agree with removing the {{long}}, but until I get a grip on the new scope, I'll let that issue lie.

I quite agree with the removal of {{Synthesis}}, though, and I think I'll keep an eye on it from now on: It is not helpful, as it does not indicate what statements are problematic. If Ultra or anyone else wants to argue SYN violations, they should mark the specific statement with {{syn}} instead. Blanket SYN violation claims are just not constructive. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, most of the article violates OR and SYN by using sources do not make allegations of terrorism or state terrorism. Especially troublesome when there is no definition of these terms.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point one: If a statement, sourced or not, doesn't say anything about state terrorism, it is no SYN violation. It is {{irrel}}evant. Tag it as such.

Point two: In such a long article, it is not helpful when you say "here be SYNtheses". Please tag each such statement with {{syn}} instead. Then we will know where to look and what to fix.

Point three: If you cannot find a SYN violating statement, there is no SYN violation. The only way I'd agree to a {{synthesis}} tag, would be if a significant number of {{syn}} tags went uncontested and unfixed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source or material does not claim state terrorism, then it is irrelevant for this article. Or should we start adding sourced critical material regarding abortion, animal experimentation, or the income tax, just because some anonymous editor argues that it is terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)