Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Dr Ganser and ST911.org

I have again removed the misleading association of Dr. Ganser's 1999-2003 work with his membership of ST911.org in 2006. USER:Torturous Devastating Cudgel added this line and his stated reason was to associate Dr. Ganser "with a group of well know crackpots". This is POV pushing in its clearest form. ST911.org can have no possible association with Dr. Ganser's work as the organisation did not exist at the time. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, is he a member of the organization now? If so I do not see the problem, its like not calling George Bush as President Bush when you talk about anythnig that happened before the election ... If he is a member, I am sure he is a proud member, I am not sure what the problem is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its irrelivant to the research. And if someone wrote "Famous alcoholic President George Bush...", don't tell me that wouldn't be biased and POV pushing. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Except alcoholic isnt a position, nor something I am sure he is proud of. Are you comparing his membership to this group with a disease? hardly a fair comparison. If Ganser is a member, proudly not forceably, then I do not see the problem. Again when speaking about George Bush, notice how you said President, even though the alcoholism was in the past before the presidency ... you kind of proved the point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing the article in a clear situation of an edit conflict while its protected anyway? This clearly isnt a typo or error, he is a member, its an editing conflict over if it should or should not mentioned, please place the information back in the article while the article is protected. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear error, and clearly biased POV pushing as admitted by the editor. If you can show that his current membership of an organisation that didn't exist at the time he did his reasearch has any connection with that research, then it can go back. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You havent even made a case, this is abuse of admin tools, your own words by citing alcoholism and president bush prove you wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The editor who added it himself says he did it to discredit Ganser. Given that, and the fact that there is no relationship and no possible relationship between ST911.org and this research, How can it be anything but biased POV pushing? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV being pushed if he is a proud member of that organization? You make it seems like he should shamed by the organizations he joins. So please, what is this POV of stating the organizations that he willingly joined and remains a member of. A prominent position should be highlited. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its irrelivant what his emotional state is. ST911.org didn't exist when he did the research. It has no connection with it. End of story. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not end of story, you are actually arguing against something you know is true. Your own words prove that he should be addressed by his prominent position. Your exact words were "Famous alcoholic President George Bush..." However he wasnt an alcoholic when he was president, so you should have been saying "famous alcoholic George Bush" if you really believed what you are arguing. This will be noted and when the protection is removed his position will be readded. Please refrain from using admin tools to solve content disputes you are involved with in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would kindly read again what I wrote you will see that I gave that as an example of what would also be inapproapiate.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct but your insinuated negative is alcoholism, which equates it to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, however you still noted him as president, whereas president, therefore even in your attempt to prove past events should not be noted, you still noted him according to the way the article should, by his prominent position.

• prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth Dr. Daniele Ganser...
• Famous alcoholic President George Bush..."

The insinuated negative is in bold, note you still called him persident though it was before the alcoholism. So you are in fact still noting him by his most prominent position regardless of the timeline. As I said before if you felt the prominent position should not be noted as the membership to a group, in this case alcholics, was before the position, it would simply read "Famous alcoholic George Bush" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an ETH researcher is less prominant than being a member of ST911.org? ETH is one of the most important universities in the world.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ETH is noted in both if you did not notice. It also just says he is "of" not that he is a research for. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His is and was a researcher for ETH. ETH awarded him a PhD for this research. There is no connection to ST911.org Self-Described Seabhcán 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out further your edit summary was incorrect, this information is not misleading and is quite factually verifiable. You seem to have a negative view of this oraganization as you equate it with alcoholism. However the doctor is quite happy with his membership, or at least he hasnt given it up as its voluntary, we should not exclude it simpyl because an admin has negative ideas associated with it. Noone said there was a connection, ST911.org connects to him as he is a prominent member of the organization, hence it should be noted. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't what you or I think. This article isn't about Ganser's life and isn't a list of his memberships. The article mentions research on a topic. There is absolutely zero connection between that research and this organisation. It was admittedly added to put a POV. It needs to be removed. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is not famous for having a PhD from ETH. He has an article, albeit stub, for his participation in Scholars for 9/11 Truth, hence it should be the thing we note, not a PhD from ETH. His article does not even mention ETH. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Ganser mentioned in this article? Because he is an ST911 member, or because of his research for ETH on Nato and Gladio? ETH does mention his work, for example, here. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

He is not notable for that, if you wikilinked his name and followed it, it would mention 9/11 scholars and nothing else, while this should be expanded, it should be noted that simply his PhD from ETH would not warrant him an article here, so the reason he is notable should be mentioned, as its obviously important. Again I ask you put aside your negative feelings of this group and simply allow him to be noted by a group he willingfully joined and was able to get an article on Wikipedia because of his membership to. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is ludricous to suggest that he is notable because of ST911.org membership. It is also irrelivant. He is mentioned here because of his research for ETH and nothing more. ST911.org has no connection to that research. (Also, I don't have 'negative feelings' for ST911.org. I have written articles for them myself. But they have absolutely no connection to this research.) Self-Described Seabhcán 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it ludacris to state that when he only has an article because of his affiliation with them and is only noted prior to this event in the article related to them? If I put it up for AfD I am sure that noone is going to state prominent ETH researcher as a reason to keep. The edit history shows he only has a article because of them and so he is notable because of them, at least by Wikipedia standards. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is he mentioned here, on this article? Self-Described Seabhcán 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because os his ETH research, however that doesnt mean we limit who he is to just that, his prominent role now is his 9/11 Truth membership as noted here on Wikipedia. He is notable because of it, your failure to see this is beyond my belief. I give up, you are gonig to do whatever you want, and abuse your admin tools to do it, this is not becoming a waste of my time, because even though you symantically do use this system as proven above and then totally ignored when confronted with it, you will still fight to keep mention of this organization off this page because of your personal opinion of it. When the page is unprotected I will simply add it back as you have given no reason for its removal. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have given no reason for it to stay. Why is he a 'prominant' member of ST911.org? His name is simply one amoung hundreds on the membership page. [1] Self-Described Seabhcán 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reason given was because TDC was pushing POV, you failed to prove that, I am done arguing in circles with you. I have proven that you yourself use this method to reffer to people, which you again ignore as I laid out above, and that his position in 9/11 Scholars is why he even has an article here. However you ignore these points and I am tired of restating myself to have you keep saying the same thing, as such I have decided to no longer discuss this with you until the time in which one of stops saying the same thing. Good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, I think it was inappropriate for you to make a substantive edit to the page while it was protected. I would appreciate it if you would undo it. Request unprotection if you want to, it has probably been long enough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules on editing protected pages say that minor corrections are permitted after consultation on the talk page. If you check the archive above, you will see that that is what was done. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Admin, isn't there supposed to be a firewall between the pages you edit, and the pages you use Admin powers on? Morton devonshire 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the case of removing clear errors and cases of POV pushing. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't minor, and there was not general agreement for the change. It needs to be undone until the page is unprotected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert it you can explain how it isn't a clear case of POV pushing?Self-Described Seabhcán 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or I) can edit a page that was protected due to edit warring, to make the presentation closer to what you (or I) think is neutral? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The editor who added this text admitted on this talk page that it was done with the intent of POV pushing. This is akin to vandalism. In this case, yes and admin can remove the text. If you disagree, perhaps you should put a note on the Admin notice board. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the link that showed this? rootology (T) 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I never once “admitted” that this was done with the intent to “push my POV”, I added the adjective “prominent 9/11 scholar for Truth” as a qualifier on his credibility. He is also an associate with the Larouchies (I did not mention this). Editing the article when it is protected, and when you are involved in the dispute is an abuse of your admin function. This is a content dispute, not a spelling error or vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] "Ganser's association with a group of well know crackpots..." Self-Described Seabhcán 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone changed George Bush to "President George Bush" and said in the summary, "Bush's affiliation with this terrorist regime", would that be grounds for removing it? would that be POV pushing? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly consider that an indictment of POV pushing. The description of Gasner in the article as belonging to Scholars for 9/11 Truth is completely 100% factual. No opinion is offered, no derogatory comments presented, just a statement of fact that goes to his credibility if an entire section of the article is to be accredited to him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is completely irrelavent because st911.org did not exist when the research was done. You've said yourself you are trying to discredit Ganser by association. This is POV pushing. So me an citation that connects st911.org to Ganser's ETH funded research. Self-Described Seabhcán 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal may or may not be a good idea. (It is striking that a euphemism for 'conspiracy theorist' has in turn become pejorative.) It was not appropriate for you to use your admin powers to do it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stick by my action. If it is not permitted, I want to find out for definite. Self-Described Seabhcán 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FULL

Seab, I'd roll it back for now. From the policy...

Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatantly unsuitable content.

In the following specific cases, an exception is made:

• Adding a {{protected}} or {{vprotected}} template
• Adding a link to Wikipedia:accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article.
• Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.
• Reverting to a favored version, as described above.
• Correcting spelling mistakes or typos.

Special caution is needed in editing permanently and semi-permanently protected pages. In nearly all cases, administrators should not make substantial changes to pages protected for legal reasons, excepting cases of obvious trolling and/or vandalism. Because of their visibility and importance, most MediaWiki namespace pages should be approached with extreme caution and only by those who adequately understand the consequences of their changes.

Edits can be made to already protected pages via {{Editprotected|reason}} requests.

Perhaps you should post to AN/I asking for input on this (no offense to anyone else on this talk page or that will wander along that HAS contributed; none of us are non-biased enough on either side to judge). Barring that I'd say just roll it back for now, so things don't turn into a blow up. rootology (T) 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First:I raised the issue on the talk page before action (see archive). Second:The removal of six words is not a 'substantial change'. Third: this is certainly a case of "obvious trolling and/or vandalism". I stand by my edit. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the reason, namely credibility, that I prefaced Gasner with 9/11 scholars for truth. I object to the continual referral of my edit as trolling or vandalism, because its neither. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this page. I must say I was surprised (as in 'what a coincidence') to see Ganser's name because I am in the middle of his book on Gladio "nato's secret armies". That is how I knew him. Not his school. I had no idea about that. I wanted to see the entire list of the scholars. But the list only had about 20 or so. Why only those were chosen to be listed? So why not list them all?

Unprotection

Tom has requested it be unprotected here. 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having doubts this page is anywhere near being unprotected. rootology (T) 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we have our input on the strawpolls for a few days before unprotecting it.--Kalsermar 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted a seconded there. rootology (T) 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the name itself

Let's try this a completely different way, as everything else is getting us nowhere for days. I say we don't even DISCUSS unprotecting until we get a "Final" name as that's such a big to do. Once we agree on a name (I'm saying lets gun for at least 70%+ concensus, so no one can complain legitimately after), we go back to unprotecting talk. I *do* feel that the "series" of articles have value and merit, but we should come up with a standard name for the lot of them. Xyz in abc country. The others get hardly any action, and we're the 'lead' article arguably, so lets do this right, and then the whole thing can be moved into the whole Terrorism line of articles/category. How about each person just reply with what YOU think should be the best name format. Don't give us a doctoral essay--give us a naming structure, like Badminton and the United States or something, so we know where each of us stands, and what each of us wants. PLEASE don't start a threaded debate, we've had a million and they go nowhere now. Let's just hear your ideas for a new naming scheme--right to the point, what do you want? Then we can find a middle ground. I'll lead off. Feel free to change your vote idea after, if you like someone else's more. If your name idea implies a change in tone/content of the article, that's fine--don't tell us here, let us just know the name, not what it means to you yet. Lets just work on a name, then we can see what we have from that. rootology (T) 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE Can we PLEASE confine this discussion to one place: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Current_title. We have all addressed this issue in many times in many different places. I think it would be best to confine our comments on this issue to one central location. Travb (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

• State terrorism and the United States of America rootology (T) 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• State terrorism by the United States --Kalsermar 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  I agree with my fellow editor Kalsemar--NYCJosh 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Another possibility is State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States

  You do realize that would require all pieces in the article to be proven facts, meaning historians and or courts of law must have found the US guilty of that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  What is your basis for this assertion? Allegations made by notable sources (e.g., Hugo Chavez) are relevant to an article on us state terrorism and should be mentioned on such an article. Jun-Dai 22:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  I appreciate your take on this proposal. --NYCJosh 21:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Upon re-reading the suggestions, I notice that Kalsemar may be switching to another proposal. I agree with Kalsemar and Travb that "allegations" is unencycl. In the interest of reaching agreement, if Kalsemar switches I don't want to be the sole holdout for this suggestion, and I'll switch to Political Violence by the United States, along the lines proposed by Travb. I think "US", as opposed to "American", because in this context "American" is not the precise term for designating the political entity known as the US gov't. We would have to disambiguate wars authorized by Congress, which could also be understood as political violence.--NYCJosh 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  My proposal stands, no allegations in the title. Political violence, is that even a defined term?--Kalsermar 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Allegations of state terrorism by the United States of America --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this title. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This one is okay with me. We might drop of America to make it less unweildy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations are inherently unencyclopaedic as an ency deals with facts.--Kalsermar 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have been saying the content is not encyclopedic and renaming wont change that. However since I had to pick, I figure keep allegations then put it through another AfD, naming it anything without allegations would be supporting allegations as facts, which they are not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's something to be said for both 1)stay at allegations... in which case I support another AfD ot without the word allegation in which case most of the content will fail and have to be deleted.--Kalsermar 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to write about allegations as allegations. "Naum Chimpsky and a bunch of effete Antarcticans say America sucks. [73rd Antarctic conference on Impotence, 2002]" Whether it is useful or legitimate to assemble such a collection of factiods is a question for AfD, but we have already had one of those. There is no reason to have another at this point.Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Such factoids are rolled out all the time in articles like Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba so this type of article is nothing new. I support the present title "Allegations of state terrorism by United States". My complaint is that at the moment this protected article doesn't carry the key allegations concerning Cuba which are detailed and numerous. I'm tired of reiterating what they are - check the archives. --Zleitzen 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations" is a weasel word WP:AWW and should remain out of the article. Travb (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations is only a weasel word when the source of the allegations are not included. Hopefully we won't have any unsourced allegations in the article, in which case we are only dealing with a question of relevance and not one of weasel words. Jun-Dai 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This version is preferable, would agree with dropping the "of America" bit. Addhoc 17:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• American political violence as per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view. Travb (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• American terrorism (term) might be worth considering. It was stable for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'State-sponsored International Terrorism by the US' is another possible title. User:Green01 11:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

UPDATE Can we PLEASE confine this discussion to one place: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Current_title. We have all addressed this issue many times many different places. I think it would be best to confine our comments on this issue to one central location. Travb (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations

As long as the items have this form:

Notable Person says, "blah blah blah, a shocking act of American terrorism, yadda yadda yadda."[citation to verifiable source]

I don't care. Put in all of those that you want. If it has this form:

Blah blah blah was a shocking act of American terrorism. [citation to verifiable source who says that]

I oppoose including it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate answers to these three questions:

1. What threshold of RS would be needed for you to not oppose one of the latter format?
2. Will you apply this same standard to editing of the other related articles (the Syria one, for example)?
3. Would the source of the RS, by it's nationality, have any bearing on it's validity? rootology (T) 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's an established fact it doesn't belong on this page. If it's an allegation it needs to be presented as an allegation.

I have no plans to edit the article on Syrian terrorism, whatever it's called. Do what you want there without interference from me (subject to 3rr enforcement, and so on). You can look at my work on Islamic extremist terrorism or 9/11 and draw your own conclusions.

Would the nationality of the source be a factor in its reliability? Everything is a factor. Reliable sources are reliable sources, decided case by case. If one source reports Chomsky said something, and another reports it wasn't Chomsky but Ward Churchill, we might include both or neither. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

past bombings in the United Kingdom

It can be suspected that UK families/individuals who have emigrated to the United States and are active constituents are also busy "in their spare time" attempting to find a connection between Pennsylvania historical German immigrants/afficionados and the World War bombings of the UK, judging from the amount of "telephone terrorism" prevalent within the United States. 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot

Edit request

This edit was made by an administrator after the page was protected.[3] I request that it be undone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are proposing to add the words "As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth" to the paragraph. Why? There is no cite backing up the "prominent" part, and this person's membership has nothing to do with the subject of the article or the paragraph. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise. We could add a sentence at the end of the Ganser paragraph saying "Dr. Daniele Ganser became a member of the US group Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2006." This would make it clear that the research mentioned above has nothing to do with ST911.org while achieving TDC's goal of discrediting Ganser personally. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you returned it to status quo ante, and then we discuss how to change it after the page is unprotected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to revert. I believe I acted correctly. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you acted correctly is irrelevant. People believe you didn't so you should err on the safe side and undo your edit.--Kalsermar 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying, 'It doesn't matter what the rules are'? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly troubling that an editor who is involved in the discussion here make any change to the page in question. Even a comma out of place might be dubious behaviour. At the very least any edit should be done by an uninvolved admin. The very fact that there are questions being raised about this edit should be enough to convince Seab to undo his action as this borders on misuse of admin functions.--Kalsermar 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If this edit was perefectly fine, 3 people would not be asking you to put it back. Please do not use admin tool on articles you are in a content dispute over, especially when there is a content dispute over that exact item. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Make it 4. Admins who edit an article's substantive content should not be using their Admin powers on the same article. Morton devonshire 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So, the only objections you can make is that you object? That is not an objection, it is a meta-objection. If someone can show either that I failed to follow correct procedure or that the edit itself is incorrect, I will revert. Otherwise it would be improper to do so. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I made my objection your ignoring of it does not make it non-existent. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You failed to follow correct procedure as described in the protection policy, specifically: "Administrators should (edit protected pages) in accordance with consensus." Fagstein 05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC

I did follow correct procedure. When I originally requested the edit on the talk page (See archive 2). Only two editors responded to the request. Travb agreed with the edit. TDC disagreed but admitted that he had added the phrase in an attempt to push his POV. I waited several days for other editors to respond and none did. I then made the edit. This is correct procedure. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it got archived contributed to the lack of responses. Anyway its obvious you would have made the dit anyway because you now have everyone telling you they had a problem with it adn you do not care, so lets not hide behind the two editor excuse. If that is how you felt you would surely put it back since its obvious more then 1 person had a problem with it, however you wont, your actions speak loudly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I acted correctly to remove it. Nobody has presented a convincing arguement as to why it should be put back. I will not revert. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fine when protection is removed the concensus will uphold its decision. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's little point in re-stating our positions over and over. I have asked for the edit to be undone. Some uninvolved admin will either come and undo it, or not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I actecd correctly. If some uninvolved admin overrules me, then so be it. I followed correct proceedure and the edit is correct. I will not revert it. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove protection -- at this point, it only serves Seabhcan's edits. Morton devonshire 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in aggreeance with seabhcan, he didn't violate anything nor did he abuse any powers, the edit should stand at this time75.8.81.47 08:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A user with 2 edits only on talk pages comes to defend seabhcan and knows how to sign his posts and wikilink ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ZeroFaults, you haven't caught me this time. 08:22 GMT is way too early for me to be editing Wikipedia. WHOIS shows it to have been a night-owl in the US [4] Self-Described Seabhcán 14:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit your paranoia, noone said it was you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I support User:Seabhcan.

1. I added the weasel word tag, and I realize it was a mistake,
2. Further, User:Seabhcan edits are incredibly minor, he proposed: Dr. Daniele Ganser became a member of the US group Scholars for 9/11 Truth in 2006. as a comprimise, and not one of you accepted this.

This simply is evidence that some people on this board refuse to comprimise. That is why User:Morton devonshire, someone who voted to delete this page in the AfD, continued call for unprotection is so troubling: a large edit war will insue the minute that this page is unprotected, because Zer0faults, tbeatty, Kalsermar, and Tom Harrison will start deleting large portions of text as they did before, citing dubious wikipedia policy, which I have shown in at least one case WP:NOR is ridiculous. Travb (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit was already made, read the top tag. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You called WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:V dubious ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

What are we waiting for? Morton devonshire 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Trav wants the article renamed so he can keep the content in some form. It seems like he wants a dif article I am not sure why he doesnt create one and merge the important stuff then we can delete this one. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton, first of all, as soon as we unprotect, yourself, Zer0faults, tbeatty, Kalsermar, and Tom Harrison will start deleting large portions of this text again, leading to an edit war. Since there has been absolutly no comprimise on your part about content (i.e. it appears you simply want the entire article deleted), the article should remain protected. Zer0faults, what are you talking about? Travb (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When you learn to stop making accusations I will address your points, good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy which has wide consensus: it's called WP:NOR. That's what I'm trying to enforce. This article is a regular cesspool of original research, particularly of the "connect the dots" kind, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. See [5], quoted in its entirety below.

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.

So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.

But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.

For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.

If connect the dots were avoided in this article, I would leave it alone. Morton devonshire 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If connect the dots were avoided in this article, I would leave it alone. Ha ha. That is funny Morty.

I addressed the entire WP:NOR allegation in detail, point by point, which was ignored. Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/archive2#Comments_from_below Is this a case if you keep repeating the same thing, over and over, eventually people will believe it? For now, I have basically given up attempting any sort of comprimise or debating anything here. It is truly pointless.Travb (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did not continue to ignore it, he wouldnt have to constantly repeat himself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/archive2#Comments_from_below User:Zer0faults Quote: "I am done talking to you about this" I will let you have the last word on this...as I mentioned, it is rather pointless to debate this any longer. I showed clearly that allegation that quoting Chomsky was original research was absolutly ridiculous.

I would encourage everyone to vote on the straw poll. Travb (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Letting me have the last word, would require you not to keep replying ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls Lets vote. (I don't care if wikipedia doesn't official cavll it voting--it is voting). Lets stop sniping at each other and lets vote today. The unprotect request failed, and has been deleted, so comments about this are a waste of time. Actually, at this point, any comprimise whatsover appears to be a waste of time, so lets just vote. Travb (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's just follow policy. As far as I'm concerned you can include any notable allegation, as long as you include it as an allegation, rather than as a fact. We can write, "Ward Churchill says Bush is a terrorist.[cite Churchill]". We cannot write, "Bush is a terrorist.[cite Churchill]", no matter how many random guys on the internet vote otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but its not enclyclopedic to write a whole article on Chomskys accusations as that is where 3 of the pieces are based on. The cuba section still does not have supporting evidence and noone has offered any. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly true. I was speaking in general about what the page might include. The usual rules about balance, notability, and undue weight still apply. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think people filling out the strawpolls is a good idea to get a feel of consensus, not as a vote. Also, @Tom, allegations are by definition unencyclopaedic and are to be avoided if I read WP policy correctly. That's a major problem in this article, there's allegations instead of just facts.--Kalsermar 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom is entirely correct here, attribution is wikipedia policy. We report notable views - not "facts". I urge you to read more about how wikipedia works and how to deal with controversial subjects. As for Zero, put "Ricardo Alarcon" and "state terrorism" into a search engine for some supporting evidence. His notable views will form some of the Cuba section once this damn page is unprotected - forget Chomsky. You'll also find his responses to allegations that Cuba is a "terrorist state", allegations by the US/John Bolton which are asserted throughout wikipedia without opposition. I've even put some of them in myself. That's how this game works. --Zleitzen 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have it backwards this is not that Cuba is a terrorist state, but US. Finding people calling Cuba one should not be added to this article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh deary me. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Having been banging on about this and repeating myself for two weeks this does note bode well. Ricardo Alarcon who is President of Cuban National Assembly has made notable claims of US state terrorism against Cuba. That is going to be detailed in the Cuba section of this article (among other details). You keep going on about "no evidence" etc - look it up yourself as I asked you to, and have prompted since I entered this dispute. The references out there are many and well documented. The allegations that Cuba sponsors state terror are elsewhere in wikipedia, such as here [6] (written by me), I was using that as an example of how this game works the other way. Of course we don't put that in this article. This is about the US. Is that clear now?--Zleitzen 14:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to do research for all the people who want an entire article based on allegations. I was told numerous times by the last editor arguing he can find lots of historians, however he never provided one. Again if the only person is Alarcon then this article still will be heading back to AfD. Extraordinary claims need numerous sources, if you want to argue that the US commited terrorism in Cuba then provide more then 2 people stating it, historians would be best instead of Chomsky and a person who works for the other government, the government that only has one voice because it only has one political party is quite dubious. And my apologies I misread when you stated "You'll also find his responses to allegations that Cuba is a "terrorist state", " Though I have never actually heard the US call Cuba that, though I completely believe they would. I was not replying to your whole message, just that portion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't want to argue that "the US commited terrorism". It has already been argued, notably so. Government allegations to the UN and other organs are notable. You completely misunderstand the way wikipedia works if you think otherwise and your requests for Afd, without taking 10 seconds of your time to discover that these allegations are widespread, notable, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia is counter-productive. All articles of this nature are articles based on allegations. See Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba for example. That's the way it works.

Among the numerous allegations in question here is Cuba's lawsuit against the U.S. declaring that for over 40 years, "terrorism has been permanently used by the U.S. as an instrument of its foreign policy against Cuba,".[7],[8]. Such allegations are the basis of this page. There should be no argument here on your part. And no more calls to delete this article. Please move on to allow this page to be unprotected as per policy, and allow editors to insert notable "accusations of state terrorism".--Zleitzen 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have oddly enoguh been told by editors that I have too firm a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I never said there was no proof, I simply said repeatedly, and still do, that this article has no sources. I do not mind sources and as I told you, extraordinary claims need numerous sources, if you can provide those more power to you. My personal belief, which does not bare on my ability to actuall yprove it, is that Cuba is a poor helpless victim of the US bullying, but I don't have sources and neither does this article, not ones I would consider credible enough at least. So if you can provide sources that stand up to WP:RS and WP:V which asks if the source is reliable and verifiable then that is fine and more power to you. However if all you have is Castro and his workers or his political party then that is something different since he controls all of that directly. In reality showing Castro, Alarcon and his party all saying something is providing one source. Just to follow up, I call for deletion because there was no sources supporting the information, sources were provided showing that events happened not that anyone called them terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again, but all my sources provided so far stand up to WP:RS and WP:V concerning "allegations of state terrorism". You really do not appear to understand how this works. The allegations are verifiable and come from reliable sources. Whether the actual claims themselves can be verified by us in some imaginary court is not the point. Some personal notion you have about Castro is not the point. Whether you find the allegations credible is not the point. We report notable views. I believe this has been stressed to you before by other editors. Please take this fundamental tenet of wikipedia on board.--Zleitzen 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are constantly on the defense, I did not say the sources you provided did not meet WP:RS and WP:V, can you please relax a bit? I am not sure where I said a court needed to say that terrorism happened, my objection to the previous court cases was they did not say terrorism happened. Perhaps you need to step back and just take a deep breath because instead of discussing with me, you seem to be attempting to attack me and my views, which my person views as pointed out above are actually in support of your ideas. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus I can understand User:Zleitzen frustration, I have repeatedly asked you pointed questions, about WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V which are ignored.

User:Zer0faults, can you please relax a bit? I urge you to read more about how wikipedia works and how to deal with controversial subjects. It is clear that you completely misunderstand the way wikipedia works.

Could we agree that it really is counter-productive when one wikiuser tells other wikiusers to calm down and belittles other users, telling them that they misunderstand wikipeida, and encouraging them to read wikipedia policy?

Especially when some would say that this user selectively interprets wikipolicy and actively ignores wikipolicy which does not support their own view? BTW, you have now threatened to report me at least three times to admins. You quote wikipolicy repeatedly, but when I call you on your narrow interpretation of wikipolicy and back you into a corner, you either threaten me, demand to move the discussion somewhere else, or ignore my points.

The last threat was because of a posting here which I decided to abort and erase, which showed how you readily accept certain sources on pages which support your views (for example The Guardian), but you refuse to have these same sources here. Some would say this is hypocricy. Why is the Guardian met WP:V WP:RS etc. on War_on_Terrorism/Rewrite you monitor but not this one? Why is referencing the NYT on the Cope2 page okay, but not on this page?

Further, is it okay to say whatever you want to anyone, in violation of WP:Civil as long as you state it as "Some would say"? This seems to be your policy, which I have repeatedly used.

You continue to say "focus on the article, not the editor", yet you are constantly talking down to other wikiusers about reading policy, telling other editors "You completely misunderstand the way wikipedia works" and telling them to calm down.

If you are going to use wikipedia policy as a weapon, selectively ignoring policy which doesn't support your POV, don't be surprised if other users turn your own weapon against you.

You wanted and encouraged a straw poll: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls, which I readily supported and encouraged. Yet only three of us have added our comments on the straw poll. Since consensus seems impossible on this talk page, please take the time to add your comments to the straw poll.Travb (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again please do not stalk my edits, if you cannot reffer to my points I will take it to AN/I as you have crossed the line repeatedly and continue to do so. As for NYT I am not sure what you are talking about because, well you never actually cite anything or show a dif ... When you reply please post the link and tell me what exactly the source is being used to prove and I will get back to you as to if I think its acceptable or not. Please refrain from violating WP:POINT in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so you understand, The Guardian meets WP:RS, however taking an article that does not even contain the word terrorism and stating that its proof that the US has been accused of terrorism, especially when the article says unlawful combat, is basically lying about the source. The source has to prove the statement before it, meaning if the source doesnt say terrorism then the statement before it should not state terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please also keep your personal gripes to my talk page, its unnecessary for you to take it here, and quite out of line. This page is for discussing the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You continue to threaten me, repeatedly. I was waiting for the stalking charge, and I wish I would have addressed it before. In everything that I have read, wikistalking is when a person follows a person around and changes the edits of people. I have not changed any of your edits, except for those on this page. It is perfectly okay to go through a users edits.

I am glad that we have established that the Guardian meets WP:RS. My "personal gripes to my talk page" are deleted without response[9], which is arguably against Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette and accompanied with more threats.[10] Again, you can't have it both ways, you can't encourage me to move my comments to your talk page, then threaten me if I post comments on your talk page.

In addition, my comments I post here revolve around this article.

I encourage you to participate in the straw poll, which you encouraged. Travb (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Travb, admin Tom H advised not participating in the straw poll. So I am not participating unless this issue is resolved.--NYCJosh 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi NYC, I am not going to stir the pot anymore and respond to what is above (I am attempting real hard to not read it right now). I can address every issue point by point later, if necessary... But NYCJosh, this sounds really strange...I am confused, can Tom H explain? Can you explain? Travb (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannot explain. But I would urge you to stay involved with the editing of this article. --NYCJosh 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the question? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You "advised (User:NYCJosh) not participating in the straw poll"? strange. why? Why so cloak and dagger: "I cannot explain"? NYCJosh, unless what issue is resolved? Travb (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone said, "Let's vote," and why. I said, "Let's not," and what I thought we should do instead of voting. Is that what you are asking about? If so, what are you asking? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, okay. Please don't vote, but please help us reach a consensus by sharing your opinion on: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls.

I will cross out the "vote" portions of my statment. If that will encourage others to participate in our "bi-partisan" strawpoll.

If so, what are you asking? It sounds weird the way NYCJosh said it, thats all. I was just curious. Travb (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Morton devonshire got the article unprotected. Wow. What next? What should we, as a group do? Any suggestions? Is there anything we can do to avoid the article being protected again? Please, lets focus on what we can personally do, not what others should do. I personally think I need to try really hard for the next couple of days to let others decide were the article is going. So best of luck with the article gentlemen (and ladies). Travb (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions? Yes, follow Wikipedia policy in making edits: WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:Verify. Tschüss! Morton devonshire 06:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself am going to wait 4 days, however if this wealth of sources supporting all of these "allegations" is not provided I am gonig to start removing items again that do not contain sources citing specifically allegations of terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest you tag the sentences that should have sources in the meantime, to allow other editors to search for references? Addhoc 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the archive I am not gonig through this again. Everything on Cuba needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism. Since you seem to be appearing after the debate you may want to review the archvies for which sections are contested as no source has bene provided yet for anything since unprotection. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Cuba, James Bramford's quote does mention terrorism. Also, the debate on this page was at least to some extent invatation only, with named persons invited to vote. Anyway, I am reasonably familiar with the archive. Addhoc 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zerofaults is correct here. Now that the page is unlocked, everything that doesn't directly refer to "allegations of state terrorism" should be removed, including the present Cuba material. Though I would have more confidence in the evenhanded approach of editors if the same standards were applied to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state which at present is a farce. --Zleitzen 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that material not supported by citation should be removed. I'm merely suggesting that some indication, possibly using tags, would be helpful. Regarding the Cuba material, James Bramford's quote does mention terrorism. Addhoc 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims need numerous citiations, further there are 3 things being accused there and the other do not contain accusations against the US of terrorism. One states the person is a terrorist, and a CIA agent, not that the US supported his terrorist acts or told him to do them. The other states that the US took in 2 terrorists, however it also states they were not found guilty of terrorism just accused of it by Cuba and when they were released from prison it was on immigration charges, not terrorism charges. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuba accusing the U.S. of terrorism, isn't remotely extraordinary. If a CIA agent in the employ of the U.S. was commiting acts that are considered by others to be terrorism, this clearly has relevance to this article. Addhoc 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A white police officers beating a black man does not mean the state authorized the beating of black men. See the problem? You are assuming outside of the source provided that the man was working under CIA official orders. The source does not state this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is "Cuban forces capture a CIA agent Carlos Antonio Rodriguez Cabo, alias El Gallego, who has orders to unify different internal resistance groups and has been accused of committing various acts of terrorism." In your analogy, if the police officer had orders to beat someone, the state would clearly be responsible. Addhoc 17:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As the quote states, he was not ordered to commit terrorism, he was ordered to "unify different internal resistance groups" Again, the source does not state he was commiting terrorism on behalf of the United States, it actually says what he was suppose to be doing, which isnt terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the CIA agent was acting independently of the U.S. Government. If your POV is that he wasn't involved in terrorism, that's fine. However, the POV of the Cuban government is that he was involved in terrorism and that's what the article says. Addhoc 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There in lies the confusion, this article is about US terrorism and allegations of it. There is no allegation of this being a case of US terrorism, its a case of a US citizen being a terrorist. As noted in my example, if the police are sent out to write tickets and instead beat a black man, that does not mean that they were sent out to beat black men. HE acted independantly of the US government and the source does not say he was acting on behalf of the government. The problem is not that the events did not happen, its that the source does not prove the allegation exists, which is the problem with most of the article, the source prove something happened, just not the existence of an allegation of US terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the quote implies he was acting independently of the U.S. government. The article says "According to the Cuban government's 'Centro de Estudios Sobre America. "Crisis de Octubre: Cronologia." Informe Especial', a CIA agent named Carlos Antonio Rodriguez Cabo committed various acts of terrorism." which is reasonable. Addhoc 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the quote says there is an allegation against the US, its WP:OR for you to assume that because he is a CIA agent its an act by the US when the source does not state that. I just explained and gave you an example on why its even logically flawed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this conversation diverged, but I appreciate everyone holding back from large scale deletions in this article, and attempting to work towards consensus. I encourage everyone to voice their opinion here: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls. I am disappointed that some wikiusers encouraged the straw poll's creation, and yet have not voiced their opinion. Thus far only three people have taken the time to voice their opinion on the straw poll. Travb (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding edit wars, I propose that all significant additions or deletions first be proposed on the talk page for a few days so others have a chance to comment and deliberate. This is the practice on some other controversial articles.--NYCJosh 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, in this context I propose removing the sentences currently tagged as citation required. Addhoc 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A better idea would be to avoid original research, include only material backed up by verifiable citations to reliable sources, and present allegations as allegations rather than as fact. At this point I think we all need to verify that each source actually says what it is presented as saying. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree we should avoid original research, also that all material should be supported by references and that allegations should not be presented as fact. Regardless, I am suggesting the sentences currently tagged should be removed. Addhoc 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I propose deleting these tagged sentences on Tuesday, unless references are found. Addhoc 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC) In the context of mediation starting, these deletions would be inappropriate. Addhoc 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare

Quote: "Everything...needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism."

Please see the: "Implicit and Explicit Terror" section, explaining how to terrorize the population.[11]

Articles on the manual:

• Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration[12]
• Torture 101: The Case Against the United States for Atrocities Committed by School of the Americas Alumni (law review article) [13]
• The CIA's Murder Manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned." Washington Post [14]
• United Press International Rep. Norman Minetta, D-Calif: "Minetta said if that is accurate, the CIA did not tell the committees of violent acts by the rebels "and all they did was professionalize the terror."" [15]
• U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest. [16]

This manual was used in the Nicaragua vs. US case. I can't wait to see how some of you are going to spin this one away. This is a case test whether this statment is actually sincere: "Everything...needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism." Travb (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own source says the manual was not US policy ... Do you read the stuff you present. "Administration officials were reported to have stated privately that the manual had been written by an "overzealous" independent low-level employee under contract to the CIA."

Also your selective quoting above is horrible, here is the complete quote:

Recent news reports, based largely on interviews with Contra leaders, have indicated the manual was produced by the CIA to limit atrocities committed by the guerrillas. Minetta said if that is accurate, the CIA did not tell the committees of violent acts by the rebels and all they did was professionalize the terror.
The manual, which surfaced in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, is titled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare." It largely discusses non-violent ways for rebels to win support from civilians they encounter.

Emphasis added on what you choose to quote. Oddly you left out the preceding and following statement ... Please be more careful next time as it does not look good when these events unfold.

Just to point out the sources accuse the CIA of working independantly from the US in any accusations as well. So maybe you should start a "allegations of terrorism by the CIA" article, since that would be a better fit.

Here is another good quote:

"Casey, who is recovering at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, defended the manual in a 1984 letter to members of Congress. He said its purpose was to make the rebels persuasive in face to face communication and that its stress was on education, avoiding combat when necessary."

Am I missing something, the article posted on livejournal about the SOA, does not even mention Cuba ... The FFF.org article is an op-ed on a non notable publication with unknown editorial standards and is not an expert on the field ... While the SOA seems to be widely held and can be used in other areas possibly, it does not even mention Cuba and hence cannot be used to support that.

More goodies, the article from livejournal specifically states "the teaching of torture at the SOA never received official approval from either the executive or legislative branches." therefore its again, not the US commiting the acts, the article does not even state it is, just that they were not nice for teaching others how to.

Last point the article on the SOA cuts off prematurely, and it never says the US sponsored or commited terrorism, just that they taught people how to torture and kill. While the title is nice, the text does not support an allegation of terrorism, as none is made in the text. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I quoted several articles which specifically state that the act was terrorism, as you stated: "Everything...needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism." I have met this bar, so once I jump this bar, you raise it, yet again. Please focus on the straw poll becuase I fear their is not chance of consensus between the two of us? Travb (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You didnt actually produce anyone calling it terrorism, you did quite the opposite, further you stated "Minetta said if that is accurate" as someone calling it terrorism, however the statement is clearly conditional. This is why I am happy I looked over your source and why you fail to argue differently.

"Atrocities Committed by School of the Americas Alumni" This is a legal arguement being made that the people who died may be able to bring a case under certain circumstances against the United States, however the article is incomplete and so it cannot be used as a realistic source, its also on Livejournal which makes its origins dubious. The article doesnt conclude nor does the author state that the US did commit terrorism or accuses them of such, just makes a legal arguement on how the people in foreign countries can seek a court case. The article also specifically states that these acts were not commited by the US or by others acting on behalf of the US, just that the US taught them bad things and may be held responcible for it. The School of Americas Alumni are not US citizens, they are foreign nationals, their terrorist acts are not acts by the US.

The CIA murder manual quote does not accuse the US either, it specifically states its unclear if they were even following the manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied" That means terrorism occured, but its unclear if anyone was even following the manual, furthermore the actions by those people are not US terrorism and the US was not involved and as pointed out in other articles you provided, the manual does not mention killing anyone and as pointed out by the quote above, was specifically made to stop violence. So who is making the accusations in that quote? Stating terrorism took place is obvious, but the quote is not stating its by the US.

The FFF article again fails WP:RS and WP:V and is possibly written by a non expert as their standing is not given. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Zer0faults.

Those who read this have two choices: Believe their own eyes or beleive Zer0faults, granted, the glasses that you read these article titles may be tinted depending on your political ideology. When you see "US" and "terror" in the same sentence, your mind may automatically read something else, like Zer0faults does:

• Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration[17]
• The CIA's Murder Manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned." Washington Post [18]
• U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest. [19]

These is no point arguing the finer points of these other articles, it is clear that these articles meet and excede your bar, it is intellectually dishonest to set the rules, and when someone mets and exceeds this standard, to change the rules.

I am troubled by your behavior, when given two options:

• first, you could build consensus and graciously admit that another users submission has met and exceeded wikipedia policy.
• second, ignore your own eyes and attempt to obfuscate (confuse) the argument.

You have choosen the second option. Unfortunatly this is not the first nor probalby the last time that you will behave this way.

Is this statment: True or false Zer0faults:

You didnt actually produce anyone calling it terrorism.

The FFF article again fails WP:RS and WP:V and is possibly written by a non expert as their standing is not given. Wait, what is the title of this article Zer0faults. Repeat after me: Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration. So, is this statment true or false? "You didnt actually produce anyone calling it terrorism" Zerofaults also ignores these articles:

• The CIA's Murder Manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned." Washington Post [20]
• U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest. [21]

Again, wikipedians, you have two choices: believe your own eyes, or believe Zer0faults.

And please Zer0faults, for the love of God, when backed up in a corner, by your own illogical statments, don't threaten another ANI, some would say this is rather childish on your part.

I just love exploiting the largest achilles heel that wikipedians and web blog users have: they can never, ever, admit they are wrong. So they carry all of this baggage around, which I can gleefully use, over and over and over again.

I quickly admit that I am wrong, apologize, and therefore have no baggage. I am still gleefully pointing out mistakes you made almost a month ago, because you refuse to apologize, you refuse to admit you are ever wrong.

Signed: Travb (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Its good you have no counter arguement and have not read the sources, Thank you.

Can you state who in "U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest" is calling the acts terrorism, their position, and exact words. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak English? ;-)

• Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration[22]
• The CIA's Murder Manual "To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned." Washington Post [23]
• U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual. Facts on File World News Digest. [24]

Do I really need to say anything else Zero, isn't the titles and the experts Prima facia evidence?

Top Ten Dodge List

Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion.

Number 7: Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows. This tactic is so popular with biblical believers because of the ample protection that is offered from the confusion resulting from having the bible translated into (and from) a jangle of languages, so that every culture comes away with a different interpretation of God's absolute word. Few people know ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and modern English. Combine this with poetry, parable, and prophecy, and you can pretty much make up whatever you like. How can you lose?

Signed: Travb (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems your source primary language is English, so are you now arguing that killed = terrorized? since you are accusing me of muddying definitions, does this mean unlawful combat = terrorism, war crime = terrorism, illegal act = terrorism? Well sorry but then you need to change the article, terrorism = terrorism and if your sources arent calling it terrorism, then its not terrorism. The worst part is, when you goto source this what are you planning to write? AuthorX of the Washington Post called it terrorism? or do you really plan to state that the people in the article did it, even though they never used that word? We do not change peoples comments to mean what we want them to mean here, please read up on citing and quoting etc.

Stop ignoring the question, who in the source questioned above states it was terrorism?

Here is another great example of selective quoting by Travb

To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned. The democratic elements of the Nicaraguan insurgency will now be widely represented -- misrepresented, we believe -- as people who need and use terror to make their way

Whats left out is who they are talking about, the Nicaraguan insurgency no accusation of the US commiting terrorism yet again. Since Travb knows nothnig about headlines, they are meant to get people to read, perhaps you should have actually read the articles and seen noone is accusing the US of terrorism. But why read the source, I mean the headline is enough, well not for me, and I will remove them if the page is unprotected and they are attempting to be used. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop dodging the topic, im not arguing over the definition, I am arguing that the source does not give anyone accusing the US of commiting terrorism or you would be able to state who is accusing and what they said. But you cannot in either of those cases and have twice been proven to be selective quoting or using conditional statements as accusations. Tsk tsk Travb. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults wrote: "The worst part is, when you goto source this what are you planning to write? AuthorX of the Washington Post called it terrorism? or do you really plan to state that the people in the article did it, even though they never used that word?"

I plan on quoting articles, and using sources which I found, a skill, I might add, which you have not shown in an entire month on this page. You have yet to provide any source for your POV, your only proficent at quoting wikipedia policy and, when needed, twisting wikipedia policy to support your POV, when I point out this contridiction, such as WP:POINT, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, you threaten an ANI, you demand the comments be moved, etc. The livejournal links are my own, I cut and pasted these articles so that the entire article can be read by everyone. So please stop accusing me of selectively choosing what to quote and what not to quote, when, first: this is your entire strategy: selectively ignoring passages which don't fit your own POV, second: you have yet to provide any sources which back up your POV, and third, you are reading my livejournal article, which I provided, so that others could make up their own mind. You are arguing the defintion, repeatedly, terror doesn't really mean terrorism, it means something else. And when this fails, you fall back on WP:OR and WP:RS. Nevermind that in other articles you quote the same sources, nevermind that I effectively destroyed your WP:OR argument with Chomsky. You will keep repeating the same thing, over and over again, in the hopes that if you say it enough, people will believe it. I provide three articles which clearly state that the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare is terrorism, and I quote the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare manual itself. But the manual doesn't really say "terrorism" it says something else. You selectively choose which facts to ignore and which to emphasize.

The "Nicaragua insurgency" was a client army of the US, read the US v Nicaragua when US funding went down, the "Nicaragua insurgency" went down, the court found a definate link. READ THE CASE. So, you argue, quite disingenously, that since our client army did the terrorism, the US is not responsible. This is the same weak argument that you use in arguing that the SOA should not be included (with no sources of course) here: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#SOA_and_SOA_Watch. Which Self-Described Seabhcán effectively showed to be fallacious and disengenious reasoning:

I already showed you that the court ruled specifically that their actions were not actions by the United States or sponsored by them, the ruling works against you. Read it before putting it out, geez already. Read your sources please, you ahve plenty, you just dont seem to read whats in them. The article on the page itself specifically states "The United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas' ("Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare")[4], and disseminating it to Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but [the Court] did not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed were imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America. " How many times does that have to be gone over. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By that logic Bin Ladin isn't a terrorist because he didn't personally commit any acts of terrorism. He just trained the guys who did. That may be your opinion. Others may have a different opinion. The US is not a person and cannot 'bodily' commit acts of terrorism. However, if the US state trains a supports others who do, then that is US state terrorism.Self-Described Seabhcán

Problem with this is bin Laden sent them to commit the crime, I have yet to see a source stating the US sent them to commit terrorism, and yes bin Laden had admitted to hand selecting them when the captured supposed hijacker went to trial. [25][26][27] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there is a wikipedia policy about cleaning up user pages and comments, for readibility. I am not "moving" or editing your comments in anyway. If needed, I can find this policy.

Signed: Travb (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, the articles are your own and copyright violations, sorry but this now entirely fails WP:OR. Good day Travb. Please produce the originals so they can be read in a non copyvio medium before we even go any further. I still would like to see a source stating the Nicaragua insurgency is a client and commited terrorist acts, remember the source has to state both not two seperate sources cause thats a WP:OR violation. Please do not violate peoples copyrights again in attempts to use them as sources, and use your own livejournal as a location of sources, I think maybe bordering on WP:VAIN I will ask an admin however about linkspam etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world does it say that alleged copyright violations on other pages are WP:OR. First you state that me quoting Chomsky is WP:OR, and I destroy this argument, (and you ignore it), and now you state that me cutting and pasting an article in my own LJ is WP:OR. Your accusations are becoming more and more confused. "Please produce the originals so they can be read in a non copyvio medium before we even go any further." I already have. Do you have access to lexisnexis research? Most people don't. If you do, you are welcome to read these sources at your leisure. But please, don't twist wikipedia policy anymore to fit your POV, it is starting to become so absurd it is laughable.

Your argumenents Failed WP:OR, your argument failed WP:POINT, now, I have produced the articles verbatum and now you throw out copyright, twisting WP:OR yet again. The (modified) saying goes: Some people will change his views to fit the facts; Some will change the facts to fit his views. You are modifying the facts to change the views. There is no way we will ever reach consensus, because you continue to change the rules to fit your POV. I jump over one bar, and then you raise the bar higher, and say, okay: "you now have to jump over this bar". I am really glad we had this conversation, because it is Primae facia evidence of your tactics, along with the WP:POINT argument and the WP:OR argument.

I encourage everyone to read these articles themselves, and decide themselves, without Zer0faults twisting the articles to fit his own POV. Indeed: "Some will change the facts to fit his views."

I really don't understand your tactics at this point. Failing to destroy my arguments with wikipedia policy, failing to add any sources which support your own POV, what are you doing? Are you attempting to get me angry and spout off, so that you have more evidence in your continued threatened ANI? This is the only thing that I can figure out: because your arguments have become more illogical and irrational the more we talk.

"Nicaragua insurgency is a client" Read the court case, it is not my job to provide every line and paragaph verbatium here, so that you can simply flip them away at your leisure, and twist their meaning to the point of absurdity. I still await one referenced source to anything you say. You have provided none.

Oh another theat, this is the best one of all: "I think maybe bordering on WP:VAIN I will ask an admin however about linkspam" When rational debate, when facts are up against you, what have you done repeatedly?: Threatened to contact an admin. The irony is, as I continue to show that you either: (a) do not know wikipedia policy, or (b) twist wikipedia policy to support your POV, the threats have progressivly become more and more absurd. Travb (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the court case does not say they are a "client" that I have read, please point me to the page. Also none of the articles on your livejournal page state there is an act of terrorism being commited by the US. If you allege there is, please answer the question, who is making the allegation and what is their name rank and the exact quote they are saying. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, the court case you presented says specifically that they were not acting on behalf of the US. It even says it in the article page here on wikipedia if you are not in the mood to actually read the ruling itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats all very interesting, however I am still waiting for your sources, the court ruling specifically stated they were not acting under the guide of the US, just that the US was interferring in their countries issues by supporting financially the guerrilas. So I await these new sources. Please read them first. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Just because people stop arguing with you, doesnt mean you crushed anything. I still stand by what I said regarding Chomsky, and it will be removed when the page is unprotected. Your keep claiming victory simply because people are tired of you not understanding, quite humerous, go forth and crush more arguements. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus What exactly are you saying here: "and crush more arguements" Please explain.

Is quoting Chosky WP:OR, yes or no? If the answer is yes it is WP:OR, I can gladly cut and paste the entire argument here, and I can show why you are misunderstanding wikipdia policy. I still await the explanation about how cutting and pasting articles on other pages outside of wikipedia violates WP:OR. Will you ignore this too?

"...and (Chomsky) will be removed when the page is unprotected" Based on what? Please remember WP:Consensus, and please follow the guidelines of wikipedia, even those guidelines which do not support your own POV. It doesn't seem fair that you constantly preach wikipedia guidelines to others, yet you either don't follow them yourself, or ignore them when they are inconvenient.

I am glad we are making progress though:

1. The Guardian is WP:RS I quote: "The Guardian meets WP:RS", and
2. The US trains terrorists at the SOA, I quote you: ""Noone is arguing (the SOA) not a terrorist training ground".[Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Oppose_19|1]

Of course, no sources were provided for your declaration, becuase you have yet to provide one source, for any of your opinions. But we wikipedians now have the "green light" from User:Zer0faults, to allow the Guardian into the article, and to write that the US trains terrorists at the SOA. Thanks User:Zer0faults.

All we have to base you conclusions on is your opinion. I have stated before, if you want to win an edit war, outsource someone. It is clear that your tactic of selectively quoting wikipedia policy has started to catch up to you. I have repeatedly illustrated how you selectively quote wikipedia policy. Whereas myself and other wikipedians have provided dozens of sources, and you have not provided none. As Sea said: "You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia all of their sources must be Verifiable "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc." Can you cite your source?

And what has all this anti-consensus behavior gotten you? The page is protected, all of the sourced material is still on the page, despite your repeated attempts to delete them, we are building a strong consensus despite you. Tom and the person who put the AfD are comprimising what should stay in the article, and your position to delete everything is becoming more and more isolated.

I welcome your help in building this page together. But please provide sources for your opinion, and please stop misquoting wikipedia policy.

"Thats all very interesting, however I am still waiting for your sources, the court ruling specifically stated they were not acting under the guide of the US, just that the US was interferring in their countries issues by supporting financially the guerrilas" Lets stay focused here, we are talking about the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare manual. If you would like to start a new section about US v Nicaragua, I welcome it. I have read portions of the only book on this court case, and I am willing to provide sources: that is the stark difference between myself and you. I have also read more of the complex case, which I could provide sources for too, whereas you repeatedly, for over a month, provided none. The fact remains that several sources have provided meet or exceed this wikipedia policy hoop that you put up: "Everything...needs sources calling it terrorism, almost none of the items actually have a source calling it terrorism or accusing it even of terrorism." But when I met, even exceeded this bar, you raised the bar even higher. Typical tactic. It may work on non-encyclopedic web blogs, but this is wikipedia.

Well Zero, I have grown weary of the ANI threats. I think I will take a wiki-vacation from this page so you don't "take note..."* of any more of my words. (* "I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. However this comment has been noted." )Travb (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your inability to understand anything is quite amazing. Quoting Chomsky is not OR, however applying Chomskys quote to all unlawful combat cases when he was reffering to specific one is OR. Further using Chomsky as a WP:RS source when he is not a journalist nor a legal degree holding person, or expert on the legal field is against policy. Please read this previous statement repeatedly, you keep attempting to twist what I said, or your comprehension is not cutting it.

Stating the US trains terrorists at the SOA is actually false, because they are not terrorists till some time after they leave the SOA. I am not sure why you keep getting things like this confused, not all Yale graduates are president, though many have gone on to become, Yale does not train people to become president though they go on to become. Of the 60,000+ people trained at the SOA, how many have become terrorists? Again keep asking me to provide source to counter claims only you are making is just silly, you are not important enough to have someone specifically counter your claims in the mass media. However you still have yet to provide a source accusing the US of terrorism in the case of Nicaragua, I know the headline says ... Can you please tell me who in that article, now that I have asked 3 times is stating the US commited terrorism and their exact quote as well as their position and rank? You can write paragraph after paragraph but I will just keep posting this question as it illustrates my point exactly. What a shame I dont see that SOA thing ever reaching a concensus. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civil. I guess when you run out of proof you can instead insult people. However this comment has been noted. Thank you for answering my question. "Quoting Chomsky is not OR." Okay. I agree. "applying Chomskys quote to all unlawful combat cases when he was reffering to specific one is OR." I see. I understand (I think what you are saying). I dropped the dictionary defintion of "unlawful combat" = terrorism a long time ago, because this would make my work OR. I apologize for not making this clear. So, if we were to have the Chomsky quote, only in the Nicaragua v US decision, and only refering to the Nicaragua v US decision, this would not be WP:OR correct? This is all I want to do, confine the Chomsky quote to the Nicaragua v US decision. I have dropped the dictionary definition thing sometime ago, I apologize for not making this clear, because you were right in this respect, and I was wrong. So, can we agree that confining the Chomsky quote to the Nicaragua v US decision would not be WP:OR? If so, we can then move on to the Chomsky quote not being WP:RS, a tougher hurdle, which I may not be able to jump.

Please keep in mind, as I have done several times, and which you have never done on this wikipage, I was willing to comprimise and take out Chomsky completly, if the Nicaragua v US stayed in. ...And please don't attempt to take the moral high ground in wikipedia policy, responding that you are "only trying to follow wikipedia policy" because your past actions have clearly shown that this is not the case.

In regards to sources. "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Your mode of operation has been thus: You demand a source for every word in the article, which is wonderful. When a person provides a source, which I did here, in this section, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, you confuse the argument:

1) playing the defintion game: x source really doesn't really say this or that.

2) Or you state that source x isn't really an authority.

3) Or failing the first two that the source doesn't meet WP:RS

Before patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, your tacts are a very, very common tactic on wikipedia and web blogs in general. I see these tired tactics all the time. The idea is too make sure that nothing ever gets in the article. As your posts here have repeatedly alluded to, and your posts on the AfD have explicity stated: you want to delete this entire page. There is no bar high enough which wikipedians can jump to satisfy your standards. "Some people will change his views to fit the facts; Some will change the facts to fit his views." So please excuse my incredible skeptism in your sincerity in asking for sources. I have grown very weary of your repeated games, especially when your behavior has been so anti-consensus and hypocritical. Your opinion should be taken as fact, with no sources whatsoever, but when others attempt to build an encyclopedia, providing sources, you play the hurdle game.

Zero wrote: "Can you please tell me who in that article, now that I have asked 3 times is stating the US commited terrorism and their exact quote as well as their position and rank?" You can ask your question until you are blue in the face (nice attempt to turn the table on me--you are learning). I will simply respond with, please source this statment, and other statments you have made on this talk page: "SOA are not US soldiers or government officials or people acting on behalf of the US or employed by the US etc." We can fill this talk page with these two questions, and keep tally of how many times we have each asked those questions. But there is a stark difference between myself and yourself. I have actually provided sources for my opinion. In one month, you have provided not one. I am meeting Wikipedia:Verifiability, backing up my claims. You are not.

"What a shame I dont see that SOA thing ever reaching a concensus." Amen to that. "Some people will change his views to fit the facts; Some will change the facts to fit his views." As I wrote somewhere before, some wikiusers on this page admitting that the US committed a terorist act is like a Chrisitan admitting that Christ was not divine. It will never, ever, ever, happen. See American civil religion.

So lets focus on Chomsky, and ignore your banal hurdle game for every other source, We will come away either:

1. agreeing to disagree, or
2. I will concede that I am wrong...

But one thing is for certain: you will never comprimise, concede, apologize, or admit you are wrong. This is your acheles heel, which I predict will be your downfall on this page, because your behavior is arguably against everything that wikipedia policy is supposed to be. That is what frustrates me so much when wikiusers use wikipedia policy to cause division: wikipedia policy intention, everyone of those rules, is intented to help build an encyclopedia with consensus and comprimise, not division. Travb (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Until you answer this question, it will be my only response to you "Can you please tell me who in that article, now that I have asked 3 times is stating the US commited terrorism and their exact quote as well as their position and rank?"

PS I am stating that a source needs to make the allegation, you still have not presented one of the above question would be simple to answer. I do not care if it goes into the article, as long as its sourced, as long as someone is actually making the allegation, please again read WP:OR on synthesizing sources and WP:RS. Chomsky fails WP:RS because he is being used for a legal opinion and is not an expert on the field or a lawyer. It specifically says this is required, use that policy page if you do not like it to discuss changes, typing paragraphs of the same thing over and over here will not change anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, you seem determined to have the last word on every post, and on every page. This is a typical tactic you have deployed for a month. Today you have said that I was lying, and threatened me three or four times. User:Zleitzen has asked us to calm down, so you can have the last word, as you seem so determined to have.Travb (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION-page under review

I have opened the mediation request for this page, (as you can see here), and I am very interested in the content in dispute. I would like all parties in the case to come within the next 72 hours to discuss a possible resolution. I also would like some more details about what has been going on here, and quickly. The faster we can get this solved, the better. Please feel free to contact me, WikieZach| talk 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think part of the reason the Cuba section comes off as original research is the length. Would you consider cutting it down to 3 or 4 sentences -- paraphrasing the allegations. In that way, it wouldn't seem like you are trying to argue that these things WERE terrorism, but merely making a bland description of the allegations by the Cuban government. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Morton's idea would be a good comprimise, as long as no weasel words are in the 3 to 4 sentences. I will add Morton's suggestion to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America. Nice job. Travb (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignored points

The following points have been repeatedly ignored:

What is WP:OR. Is Chomsky's interpretation of the ICJ case Original research? Debate here: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/archive2#Comments_from_below

What is WP:Point? Debate here: User_talk:Zer0faults/Archive_3#Message_to_User:Kalsermar I bring it up again, because I am again accused of breaking WP:Point above.

What is Wikistalking? Wikistalking allegations, here (the previous stalking accusation was recanted, thank you).

I could go on but I will stop here, because although other points have been ignored, the appeared to have died down as arguments.

These points above are ones which continue to occur and continue to occure.

How can we ever reach consensus if one user brings up wikipolicy, then ignores other user's responses? Travb (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's not about you. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Response on your talk page. :) Travb (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent mediation had began

I encourage all users to visit: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. I am not sure the rules about who adds comprimises etc, but User:Wikizach is taking care of the case, who is an experienced mediator. Tom's has already listed a comprimise, and I will add Morton's comprimise too.

Please also take the time to share your opinion on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls. I don't understand why some of us have hestitated to share your opinion. This strawpoll was created by Kalsermar, encouraged by User:Zer0faults, and follows my own complex straw poll, so it had support from all sides. Thank you for those who have taken the time to share their opinion on the straw poll.

I want to congratulate user Morton, user Tom, and user Kalsermar for their excellent suggestions. They are reminding me that I should try to be more diplomatic and comprimising myself. Thank you all. Travb (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

OK I've drafted my Cuba section - sorry to preempt by removing Northwoods but I don't believe that it constitutes "allegations of state terrorism" ie. no one has alleged that these very vague and unformed theories by imaginative government figures actually became "state terrorism". Some may not like the rewrite, it may seem wordy and long but its actually a huge reduction of the never ending allegations trotted out by the Cubans everytime a government figure has opened his mouth in the last 40 years. These allegations play a huge part in Cuban life and should not be underestimated.

I've laid it out as an example of how I believe the information on this page should be presented, ie."Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba ... blah blah blah." citation..citation..citation. What do these allegations centre around? blah blah blah, citation..citation..citation. Keep the page name, present the allegations, as per Tom Harrison who seems to have a good handle on things and Bob's your uncle. I'm done on this page, enjoy the mediation and don't make me come down here again:)--Zleitzen 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Where's it posted? Morton devonshire 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On the page, Morton.--Zleitzen 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN STRAW POLL

I advertised our straw poll here: Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Articles.

The straw poll is here: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls. Please take the time to share your views. Travb (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell everyone "thanks" for taking the time to participate in the straw poll.Travb (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just too bad only 2-3 things actually got a concensus. Well in time more people will chime in I am sure. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point Zer0faults.Travb (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about the straw poll

If wikiusers don't participate in the straw poll, despite many repeated invitations, can they later argue against the consensus on the straw poll page? In otherwords, if wikiusers neglect to participate, despite repeated invitations, do they lose their voice in changing the page later? Travb (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"...do they lose their voice in changing the page later?" No. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I didnt know. I hope you take the time to share your opinion. Travb (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we learn from other's mistakes?

File:Mirror.jpeg

If you look at the sorid history of Zionist_political_violence, which was once Zionist_terrorism it is erie how it is a mirror image of this article.

You have the "pro-Israeli" side and the "anti-Israeli" side.

• The "pro-Israeli" side feels like the article should be deleted, and the "pro-Israeli" side uses the exact same language as the "pro-US" side here.
• Then their is the "anti-Israeli" who uses the exact same language as the "anti-US" side here. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism.
• There is a group who want to appease the "pro-Israeli" side and change the name to "alleged". This "alleged" title suggestion is throughout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism, (nevermind that it violates WP:AWW).

Somehow, someway, after this AfD, the users decided to change the title from Zionist_terrorism to Zionist_political_violence.

The Zionist_political_violence page is currently locked due to vandalism, but the vicious edit war and verbal war has decreased immensely, see: Talk:Zionist_political_violence and compare it to the vitriol, contention and vicious bickering on:

• Talk:Israeli terrorism
• Talk:Israeli terrorism/archive1
• Talk:Israeli_terrorism/archive2
• Talk:Zionist terrorism/archive1

I have requested these people's help:

Talk:Zionist_political_violence#I_write_this_comment_out_of_sheer_desperation:_want_to_change_a_terrorism_title

How can we learn from their mistakes? Travb (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll closing: last chance to share your opinion

Re: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls

User:Wikizach, the mediator in this case, has asked me to close the straw poll on Friday and to tabulate the consensus. If anyone else would like to close and tabulate the consenus, please let me know. If you want the straw poll to stay open beyond Friday, please let me or User:Wikizach know. Travb (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

initial tally coming in, looks like concensus on 6 issues. I just wan tto point out that some issues were added after the initial opening and closed on Friday, giving less time for people to respond then other sections, not really proper. But all together nice work Travb. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay last change to share opinions. This must mean wikipedia is nearing completion!--Paraphelion 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thus far, consensus on 6 issues. Indeed, this may be the final tally. I am going to wait until User:Wikizach assigns a neutral third party to decide the finally tally.

Thanks Zer0 for the kind words. Please look over my work and make sure I tallied it correctly, I may have made mistakes, I was going to message you this on your talk page, but, well, you know...

Can you give me the link to this: "Note: The threaded discussion has been moved to the talk page." Thanks in advance. User talk:Elonka tagged the talk page of the strawpoll, so I found it. Travb (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you got the tally right, 6 concensus votes listed. I am not sure why one is labeled tie however. I am still willing to change my vote on SOA and create a concnesus there as well. Just need some sources that meet WP:RS specifically stating the US engaged in terrorism, specifically that they engaged in terrorism. I see I am the only hold out so as long as it meets the normal requirement for being included I will hop on the bandwagon. Please no conditional statements, and be ready to answer: who is saying it, what was their quote and whats their rank/position. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"I am not sure why one is labeled tie however" A tie would be no consensus--correct. Which section are you talking about? If you wish, please bring this to User:Wikizach attention. Thanks Travb (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Heated debate

I've had a look at the straw poll page and have seen that it has deteriorated into unneccessary antagonisms. I urge editors to take these points aboard...

• This page is called Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States
• Therefore this page should carry notable cases of Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States
• This includes allegations by; governments, notable figures, international bodies and campaign groups. But not blogs, unnotable theorists etc. We should all know by now what source is notable and what isn't. Chomsky, for instance, is notable. There can be no argument here. (Though his works should not swamp the page)
• All the allegations must refer specifically to "State Terrorism" in name, and the key sources must contain that inference. Supplementary exposition sources that expand on the detail of the accusation should be allowed a little leeway. But the central thesis must refer directly to the term "State terrorism".
• It doesn't matter what we think terrorism is, or what we think State terrorism is. We don't need to define these terms. The notable source defines the terms. If Prince Charles believes on record that the US commits "state terrorism" because the government of Fiji bans eggs, then that notable story goes on the page with an explanation. If Chomsky believes on record that the US commited "state terrorism" in Latin American for some reason, that goes on the page. If Starbucks believe in a citation that the US commits state terrorism, the story goes on the page.

It's that simple. There should be no need for quarrels if everyone accepts that premise. We don't need to go into the claims themselves - and whether they are legitimate or not. We just need to report notable claims. --Zleitzen 12:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great compromise, any source that does not specifically state the US commited an act of "State Terrorism" should not be used. I am glad a calm minded individual came to make a resonable approach. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, you seem determined to have the last word on every post, and on every page. This is a typical tactic you have deployed for a month. Today you have said that I was lying, and threatened me three or four times. User:Zleitzen has asked us to calm down, so you can have the last word, as you seem so determined to have.Travb (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the above topic, are you stating you agree with the above or not? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling the US a "terrorist" state is simply unacceptable, I'm not sure if maybe the whole article shouldn't be deleted--IworkforNASA 19:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Calling the US a "terrorist" state is simply unacceptable" That is why I ask you to join me in renaming the article. Travb (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mnn, I'd agree there. It seems to me that we have on one side well-meaning editors wanting to work with the spirit of the article's intent, and another group who wish that the article's intent of covered topics is explicitly declared (and are currently using the article name for this). Hence a rename could be very effective to defuse the situation. However be careful to avoid overly weak titles akin to weasel words or ones that allow no clear definition to procede with. 'Incivility' and 'improper' sound like effective descriptions to use, but you would then need a means to define these in an international sense. LinaMishima 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• This page is called Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States

No consensus. Thus there's no reason to accept this suggestion.Stone put to sky 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Therefore this page should carry notable cases of Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States

No consensus on the above, so there's no reason to make this subsequent assertion.Stone put to sky 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• This includes allegations by; governments, notable figures, international bodies and campaign groups. But not blogs, unnotable theorists etc. We should all know by now what source is notable and what isn't. Chomsky, for instance, is notable. There can be no argument here. (Though his works should not swamp the page)

This is *precisely* the reason why there was no consensus on the above. The above name limits the scope of the article and forces the discussion into a narrow range of acceptability, thus creating a de facto edit that favors people who object to the very existence of the article at the expense of the people who actually created it in the first place.Stone put to sky 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• All the allegations must refer specifically to "State Terrorism" in name, and the key sources must contain that inference. Supplementary exposition sources that expand on the detail of the accusation should be allowed a little leeway. But the central thesis must refer directly to the term "State terrorism".

Again, a false conclusion that was in no way supported by the results of the straw poll. "Terrorism" need not be initiated or directly propagated by the State in order for it to be supported and encouraged (specifically: Indian wars, Jim Crow-era lynchings, etc), and so once again this artificially limits the scope of the entry to the detriment of its veracity and accuracy.Stone put to sky 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what we think terrorism is, or what we think State terrorism is. We don't need to define these terms. The notable source defines the terms. If Prince Charles believes on record that the US commits "state terrorism" because the government of Fiji bans eggs, then that notable story goes on the page with an explanation. If Chomsky believes on record that the US commited "state terrorism" in Latin American for some reason, that goes on the page. If Starbucks believe in a citation that the US commits state terrorism, the story goes on the page.

It's that simple. There should be no need for quarrels if everyone accepts that premise.

Again, nonsense; as my comments reflect, it's *not* that simple, and Zleitzen's assertions are merely a disingenuous attempt to divert our attention from that fact, to distract us from the whole reason the page exists in the first place. The main trouble here is that the page suffers from multiple parties pushing their junta's particular definition of terrorism and no one is willing to put in the time and effort to enunciate what those differences are. In order for there to be any meaningful progress on this page, those competing visions should be clearly stated and all subsequent entries make reference to how completely the introduced facts reflect each distinct definition. In other words, the only way to make headway here is to guarantee that the page reflects the competing definitions and those influence the competing interpretations of United States Government involvement. Arguing that such legwork is the provenance of other pages is simply intellectual laziness. If those pages don't provide us with the tools we need to make this one work, then it is our responsibility to the topic at hand to create the tools that will allow for a proper treatment of this issue.Stone put to sky 07:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We cannot match events with the definitions and call them terrorism. The article used as a source must specifically state the US engaged in terrorism, so the definitions are irrelevant. I am, as I have been stating, willing to accept any source that states terrorism occured, the questions, who is saying it, what rank/position they are and the exact quote needs to be able to discerned. --User:Zer0faults 12:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what i am suggesting; either you don't understand, or you are doing it purposefully. I'll presume the former, although your haughty tone suggests that you are confident you understand perfectly well.Stone put to sky 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the page be written along these lines:

"State-sponsored terrorism is a phrase that was initially introduced by the U.S. government to elucidate the often unseen operations of government-sponsored military and espionage units, even when those units are not part of the regular military or only very distantly and loosely related to the government in question. In response, many critics of the U.S. government have adopted the phrase to describe U.S. activities, charging that many actions sponsored by the U.S. government are no different in principle or practice than the actions which are commonly denounced by the United States government as "terrorist acts". The topic is a very heated issue, first and foremost because there is no commonly accepted definition of terrorist acts. Competing definitions of terrorism are rooted in political and social difference, and consequently where many people deny that an indicated act is "terrorist" in nature, others insist that the act in question qualifies wholesale."Stone put to sky 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Broadly speaking, these competing definitions can be broken down into three basic approaches: the definition of terrorism as a legal term, the definition of terrorism as a military tactic, and the definition of terrorism as a religious or moral failure. Because the qualification of any given act as "terrorist" may differ markedly depending on the basis of its definition, criticism of the inclusion of U.S.sponsored acts and initiated events will make reference to these three basic approaches."Stone put to sky 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)