Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Background and allegations sections

As discussed some section above I have made an attempt to divide the material regarding El Salvador into "Background" and "Allegations" sections. For now I simply just moved material not mentioning the US at all to the background section. This makes it clearer to see what is actually allegations regarding the US and what is simply general material about the conflict. Further sorting required.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the dividing, I moved the "Background" to the beginning, since you give background information before presenting arguments. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better. Why do you disagree? Ultramarine (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually chopping and pasting information causes issues in flow and presentation. Picking a spot and saying cut here and rename could cause further unforeseen issues. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to a general argument against any new sections. Do you have anything specific against these? Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. What I am saying is you asked a butcher to be your surgeon. The liver had to come out anyway ... The complaint is not about "new" section, its about simply picking a place and cutting it without regard for form and presentation. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly much more that must be done.Ultramarine (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my point, it seems like no care was taken to structure, especially since a "background" section was put at the end instead of the beginning. I am simply asking you to be more careful, and the obvious seek consensus, but I guess sometimes one needs to be BOLD. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then present them in a sandbox, or expect them to be reverted. As it is, the new section needs to be worked up into a presentable state before any others can be attempted. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything concrete you object to? Please state it so it can be fixed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite concrete: no sandbox. Use it. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you will apply this to your own edits as well. Jtrainor (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I already have been. Apparently you missed that -- oh, wait -- you were here during that time period. Odd, then. Would you care to explain why that fact escaped your attention just this moment, here, when you posted the challenge? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

allegation sections

We should keep the sections together, i.e. US allegations is a title, and subsections fall under it. Accordingly I moved and corrected the title of other US allegations of state sponsored terrorism. Someone should check those references to make sure they do qualify. Also, the one example given of Iran should probably be moved up to the Iran section immediately above. Lastly, I used bullet points, but not sure about preferred and consistent style, although it looks good. Input welcome. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that "opposing views" section should be removed as its off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The material currently within the section strays far from the topic indeed. Good tag.

Opposing views as such aren't off-topic though; they are more or less required by WP:NPOV.

After sleeping on it (this came up in another context), I don't think we need a section of its own for it. The different cases should all present opposing views, either within one or more subsections on "opposing views" or (if it is small enough to be clear) within the same passage as the "state terrorism" view.

As for the wider scope, I'm still getting to grips with it, but I keep thinking the scope now should cover (allegations of) state terrorism "performed by", "supported by", "suffered by", "fought by", and "condemned by" the United States. The would be a five-way split. Or would any of those be off-topic? — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views are required by NPOV and supporting material not explicitly mentioning terrorism are not more off-topic than all the critical material not mentioning state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's critical material you have a problem with, open a new section on it. The presence of off-topic "critical" material is no reason to keep off-topic "supporting" material. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No explanation for why the "opposing view" section is off-topic has been presented. If arguing that, then please open a new section with arguments on this.Ultramarine (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its so off topic that is hard to say how its is related. Maybe you can make an argument about how its claims have anything to do with State terrorism? What I see there are claims democratic peace theory, and other issues about the democratization process of former dictatorships, etc. All off topic.

Also, you reverted all my changes, including the correction of the section titles and placement. You also undid all the changes that had been made in the last few weeks, which were the result of consensus on the talk page. It seems that when you can't get any consensus you ignore it and just go back and do everything you wanted to do anyway. This is a major problem with your editing style and why its disruptive. You can not edit by edit warring, and you should respect the consensus process. No doubt you will be reverted.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"consensus on the talk page"? Please look at discussions above. If you want to add to them, please do so. Please, no double standard. The article has numerous quotes critical of the US not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Are you arguing that these should be removed?Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You or I don't need to look since we were both involved in these discussions, among other editors, and you know very well the objections that have been raised, and the arguments have all been heard. So you know very well what you are doing with adding back all the material you were reverted last week by several editors, followed by extensive discussion. You can't just wait a week and start all over pretending not to know anything. This is classic bad faith editing. Just two examples: the reinsertion of the off topic material on Japan, again, and your creating a section for the entire Intelligence Oversight Board. You even un-did all the minor changes/progress that had been made, up to removing the off-topic tag for the Opposing Views section. Like I said, you know what you are doing. You're not a stupid person. So I won't bother to argue with you as if you didn't know. That would be beating a dead horse. But I do point out that your editing is in bad faith, you are ignoring consensus, edit warring, and this will add the the piling evidence against you. Giovanni33 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus on the Japan material. Nor any explanation for why a double standard should be followed, where critical quotes do not need to mention terrorism or even the US as all. While supporting quotes must mention "state terrorism", not even "terrorism" is good enough. There has been no attempt to explain why the Intelligence Oversight Board material should be removed on this talk page. If claiming so, give a diff showing that this has happened.Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I read above that discussion and as far as I could tell you were the only one Ultramarine who argued for that material. All other editors agreed it was off topic and explained it pretty well. I would say that there was pretty clear consensus. I don't think anyone has the patients to argue with you over that again. I have restored the previous version. Please gain consensus on there before you reintroduce it again. I also took the liberty of removing the opposing views section as off topic. I see there are three editors who agree it is off topic. If anyone disagrees we can restore that section for now.67.188.208.203 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted many other things also. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored all your new additions that were valid. I only opposed those things you put back that were talked about and opposed by all other editors from last week. We need to work by consensus on this article. I hope you can agree with that.67.188.208.203 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted the corrections to Gladio sections? There has been no discussion regarding these. Nor have there been any explanation regarding the Intelligence Oversight Mateial you removed. Also, 67.188.208.203, do you have a real username? Are you some editor I know?Ultramarine (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please float your suggested "corrections" here. If you only make a correction to Gladio, I have no problem with it. I restored your valid edits, but I opposed your going against consensus by reinserting disputed material that the talk page made clear already does not belong in the article. If you have an edit to Gladio, then fix it, but stop with the other crap. No one around here is stupid.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to be a new editor or unfamiliar with this article. Do you have a real username? Are you some editor I know? Still no response regarding tge Intelligence Oversight Material, no one has given any reason for excluding it on this talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont' worry who I am. I choose to be an anon for now. Stick to the edits not the editor. About teh Intel Oversight Material, this has already been discussed on this page. Don't pretend you don't know about it. The compromise that was accepted was to trim it down. It does not need a whole section, where you quote the entire documents. That is undue weight.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff for that "teh Intel Oversight Material, this has already been discussed on this page.", please.Ultramarine (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, even I remember this. Are you the only one who doesn't remember it? I will find the difference, but I and another editor objected, I and other editor reverted you--with discussion. I compromised and left the conclusion from the report stand, and it was valid. However, an entire section for one source? It was undue weight, as was discussed. You left it alone for about a week. Memories last longer than a week, and its unlikely consensus on the issue has changed. At least we can't assume so and then ignore seeking it before reverting again. The anon editor's edits, also, were good, btw. Whoever you are, thank you!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff please. The IP editor has been blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was he blocked? You know the differences. Go back and read.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated "I will find the difference". Please do.Ultramarine (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maoism and Gladio

Intending to drawing a pejorative linkage to the atrocities of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, during which millions were persecuted and an estimated half million killed, the centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.

— the Europe section

The first part is OR since the report was published after the source given for the Cultural revolution. So the first part should be removed. Leaving only "The centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group." The comparison is IMHO more correctly to various naive small Western Maoist groups with various very original ideas that flourished during the 70s, praising Mao, blissfully unaware at the time of, for example, the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward. Should instead expand with more criticism of the report.Ultramarine (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(reformatted for clarity)

I haven't checked the sources, so I cannot yet comment on OR or not, but in general, I think statements of and speculation on intentions and motives (especially for things other than the alleged acts themselves) are rather off-topic for this article. They belong in more in-depth articles, if at all. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppets and personal attacks by Stone put to sky

Stone put to sky has continued to use sockpuppets here even after his 72 hour block. See the latest Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Stone_put_to_sky. For example, in the section "Amnesty and HRW accusing the US of state terrorism?" Stone put to sky has discussion with one of his own sockpuppets, Aho aho. Stone put to sky uses his sockpuppet to give a false impression of support for his views and to continue his incivility against me: "you're drinking what?".[1]Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong accusations for a  Likely identification.

And why are you posting this here? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Stone put to sky uses his sockpuppets to give a false impression of support for his views on this page. "Aho aho" is just on example See the contributions of the other ones as well. Such an attempt must be thwarted.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These accusations do not belong on the talk page. Also, lets assume good faith.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Who removed "allegations" from the title, and why? Yahel Guhan 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky without prior discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was discussion about the idea before. And you are not one to talk, Ultramarine.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? Source please. I have not moved the page.Ultramarine (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV intro

The intro gives undue weight to one side with much more material and several quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is tricky because there was never any consensus for a move to a new format, and certainly was not sufficiently discussed. With all respect to Bigtime's proposal, it was full of holes and even surprisingly parochial. As you can see, I do not as yet agree with the "new Scope"; it was introduced illegitimately, so I my approach towards the articles is rather divided at the moment. As for the issue of the title, I was and still am agnostic. If folk's wanted to switch it back to the old title or discuss something even better (Allegations of state terrorism and political violence by the U.S.?), I would not be averse to it. BernardL (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing the intro, not the title.Ultramarine (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In case I was not clear... until I am convinced otherwise, I am in favour of something resembling the old intro that adorned "Allegations of State Terrorism committed by the United Sates" to coincide with the only legitimately established scope for the article.BernardL (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try and make a sandbox to begin a new intro. I'm busy with a big real-world article right now, though. So MyMMV. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor it limiting the scope that it historically maintained, but keeping the title, making it clear that this article covers teh subject of State terrorism committed directly and indirectly by the US. However, we keep one small section that says the US has also accused several other states of....in keeping with the current intro. Then we link this section to its main own article that gets in depth for each of the accusations. I feel this is a good compromise and we have enough material for both subjects to be their own article. The US allegations of state terrorism of other states likewise can have a small section that says the US has also been accused of sponsoring State terror. I'd like to hear others feedback on this idea. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about NPOV in the intro. Why is there so much undue weight to the US critical side? Violates NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The scope and range of the article has direct bearing on the intro. What I'm proposing as the correct structure means the current intro is weighted correctly.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then introduce some new material for the new intro, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So any objections to including some material stating that the US ranks low on the list of state murderers during the last century?Ultramarine (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object on the grounds it would be off topic, and SYN/OR--since you are making up a counter argument (one that you feel is a counter argument)--which is really a non-sequitur. This is unless you have a source that presents this as an argument to counter the allegations of State terrorism. I doubt you do since its a very poor and weak argument being a logical fallacy, and I doubt any reliable source would make such an argument. But we editors certainly don't get to construct such an argument as if it were in response to this topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[2] Thus, I can cite him.Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't follow that his concept is reply to the charges against the US. That would by SYN to construct it as so.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed neutral version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4. Any concrete objections?Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i have some. No, i do not accept the current proposed version as accurate or acceptable. But since you will not allow me to play in your sandboxes i obviously cannot help out with that process, so i suppose the most i can say is "Try again!". Stone put to sky (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss. What do you object to concretely?Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the oversimplification of the introduction to such mundane, tautological assertions. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So what do you propose? The current version have undue weight to critical side. How about one quote for each side?Ultramarine (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated that i have objections. You don't want me to edit the page and make suggestions, so i won't. So i guess you now just need to try again. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can edit this page for now and show your suggestions. Or create your own sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about when you say "this page"? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4.Ultramarine (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus yet for making these changes to the article. So why did you? I will revert as I don't agree and you don't have consensus yet to remove the information you did. Seems you are only waiting less than a day for editors to comment. Why the rush?Giovanni33 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. No concrete objections have been made. Do you have any? If so, please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter-arguments regarding Gladio report deleted

"Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, see the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations. "Since they have been in power the Left Democrats have given us very little help in gaining access to security service archives," he said. "This is a falsely courageous report.""

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your question. What explanation are you looking for? Your question is unclear.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this material deleted?Ultramarine (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See this proposed version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox5. Concrete objections? Ultramarine (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i have some. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please specify.Ultramarine (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the parenthetical statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It is sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the one i'm talking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No parenthesis in material quoted above. If you are arguing about something else, explain what.Ultramarine (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of US position restored

"The U.S. State Department has admitted the existence of Gladio only as a plan which was to be activated in the event of Soviet occupation of Western Europe during the Cold War, but has continued to deny it qualified as terrorism. The United States maintains that several researchers have been influenced by a Soviet Cold War forgery."

I had fixed the broken link and fixed the strange and incorrect language "qualified as terrorism". Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

After so many editors asking you to introduce your edits to sandbox one can only wonder: Why is it you cannot cooperate with your fellow editors here, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any concrete objections to restoring my edit?Ultramarine (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember to give it at least a couple of days for editors in different time zones to have a chance to look at it.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are any objections to it later we can discuss it then. Do you have any objections?Ultramarine (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In principal yes. Give it a few days for other editors to comment first. What is so hard about that?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be inaccurate. To quote Jimob: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Just following this policy.Ultramarine (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV language

"The U.S. government has often been accused of being hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied."

This only an allegation. I had fixed this to be NPOV. Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, why don't you suggest what you want to change to make it more "NPOV" and gain consensus here FIRST. Then it will be very unlikely that you ever get reverted. Its really a simple suggestion and one that should not be too hard to understand. And, it really does work. Then you would not have to ask: why was it reverted? Well, why did you not discuss it here first and gain consensus. That is important, esp. in this article. Please work with others in this more collaborative manner moving forward. Also, I suspect some of your changes are lost due to your massive re-insertions of major changes that were soundly rejected by many editors, and so when you ignore consensus and make massive changes, sometimes good ones are lost in the process. This just goes to underscore my advise above, and why edit warring is messy and unproductive.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you reverted without reading. Since no objections, I will restore is shortly.Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if it gets reverted again then so be it. You deserve it. After so many editors asking you to introduce your edits to sandbox one can only wonder: Why is it you cannot cooperate with your fellow editors here, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not revert, but I would revert, and support you being reverted when you edit against consensus in this matter. If some valid material is lost, its your fault for your poor editing behavior here. Again, edit by consensus, not edit warring. Your promise to continue to edit war is not a good sign and evidence of your disruptive intentions, despite my good advice, answering your rather obvious questions. Is is so hard to make the proposal here first and get your fellow editors take on it first? If you don't do this, then this shows you are not interested in cooperative editing. If you are not, then you are not welcome in Wikipedia. Take it or leave it.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How can someone be arguing that the other is doing something wrong if they do not read before reverting?Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said they didn't read? I'm just suggesting a possible reason why some good parts get lost in edit wars, and the fundamental problem is edit warring, which I accuse you of instigating, and being the party primarily responsible in creating this problem. So you don't have much of a basis to ask why was this also lost in the process? To avoid this, simply follow my suggestion, above, and then you won't have to ask, or get reverted. Again, its really a simple concept, not novel.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It is you and some other editor who are on probation or have recently been banned for edit warring. Not I.Ultramarine (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this article and your editing style that results in you being reverted frequently. You keep asking why so I'm answering. Talking about my revert parole of some time ago has nothing to do with your question, and is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are always two parties in a conflict. You are still under the parole, right? So still relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly an ad hominem attack, Ultramarine. I ask you again:

Why do you find it so difficult to assume good faith and cooperate with the other editors, here? At the moment, it sounds as if you are prodding Gio to try and find an excuse to seek administrative discipline. Is that the case? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False accusations. Any objections to making the change as discussed?Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the ad hominem attacks, Ultramarine. Do you agree to stop with the ad hominem attacks? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are doing ad hominem: "so difficult to assume good faith and cooperate with the other editors".Ultramarine (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So you admit you are not assuming good faith. That's good.

There are, however, no ad hominems emerging from this end of the discussion. You were clearly saying that Gio's opinion on these editing matters cannot be trusted because he is "on probation". That is as clear an example of ad hominem as one can find. Now, you are making a clearly false aspersion onto my own behavior -- and, just as obviously, because you know that you have transgressed a fundamental Wikipedia tenet and are being asked to make amends.

Thus, i will ask again: what is it, Ultramarine, that you find so difficult about assuming good faith and cooperating with others? Why is it that you cannot retract your comments and make amends with Gio? Why do you insist acting in this way when you know that it will provoke an edit war? Is it because you find it impossible to work towards a middle ground, a fair consensus? If not, then i'd like to know the reason why, because for my part i would like to set aside all of this recent strife and get back to productive editing activity. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to discuss factual arguments rather make insinuations about personality.Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that you have been engaging in ad hominems, first against Gio and now against me. So again, I ask: why is it you cannot assume good faith and work cooperatively with your fellow editors, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your continued incivility has been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to changing the text above as per the first edit.Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We object to the proposed changes. If you would like suggestions on how to alter them so that we are more willing to accept them then please -- put the proposal on this page and allow us to see the suggestions. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Will create another sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.User:Ultramarine/Sandbox6Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Intelligence Overboard material

The article has a very long section and quote on Sister Ortiz. All critical. I had added some sourced counter-arguments. They were deleted without explanation. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with before, on talk. The source info you added did not present any counter arguments. It only says it doesn't know who the American speaking guy is, and that they don't have intelligence about it. That part is still there. There is no reason to have the ENTIRE report copy and pasted up in its own section as it doesnt add anything of value and bloats the section, giving undo weight to one source.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False presentation. The material contained much material casting doubt on the testimony. How can there be undue weight when most of the material is anti-US in the section even when this material was in? Ultramarine (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing anti-US. It was the testimony of Ortiz's torture, which is the subject. I read the other material and I don't see how it casts doubt on her testimony. It basically says "We don't know." And that is what is left in tact. What is missing that is significant and important that changes things? Please explain, and quote.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"At some time prior to October 15, 1991, a source told the station that Ortiz had in fact been kidnapped as she claimed and that it was probably done by the S-2 (Intelligence) office of Military Zone 302, which covers Antigua. This source said that Ortiz had been in contact with the guerrillas, and this contact led to her arrest. The source, however, said that he did not believe that Ortiz had been raped because women prisoners were not normally sexually molested. Instead, he said, women were usually either stabbed to death to make it look like an ordinary criminal incident, or drugged and released in a disoriented state. This report was not sent to DO headquarters or disseminated as intelligence. Station personnel, while not remembering seeing the report at the time, told the IOB upon reviewing it that the report would not have been disseminated because it was not reliable intelligence in that there was no chain of information explaining how the source claimed to have knowledge of it.

In 1992, the station reported to DO headquarters that a source had stated that two guerrillas, captured two days before Sister Ortiz left Huehuetenango, had told the army that they had been waiting for Sister Ortiz to bring them food and ammunition.

In mid-February 1994, the station disseminated an intelligence report from a source who stated that the old Guatemalan Military Academy could not possibly have been the location where Ortiz was held and tortured as she had said. The source said the D-2 had moved out of that building in early 1985 and had completely dismantled all of its detention cells at that time.

In early November 1994, a source told the station about a foreign journalist who had reportedly stated during one of Ortiz's later visits to Guatemala that he had learned from a URNG source that the Ortiz story was fabricated and had been intended to provoke an end to US funding for the Guatemalan security services. The source could remember no details concerning the journalist's identity, however. The station added that it too had doubts about the Ortiz story, but it did not disseminate this report beyond DO headquarters.

In early November 1994, the station disseminated a report from a source who stated that the D-2 headquarters had been at the old Guatemalan Military Academy from 1978 to 1984, and that there were D-2 holding cells there then, but that these cells were dismantled when the D-2 moved out in 1984. (The source did say, however, that from about 1984 to July 1994, the D-2 had holding cells near the Mobile Military Police (PMA) compound in Zone 6 of Guatemala City.) The station commented that this inconsistency in Sister Ortiz's story was viewed by Guatemalans as proof that her claims were fabricated."

So many things casting doubt deleted.Ultramarine (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the Ortiz case moved to a separate article which might deal with pro/con, evidence, etc, in-depth and leave here a relatively short place-holder in this article. Human Rights Watch has commented on the tendency of the United States, particularly its government to care what was going on in Guatemala mostly to the extent that victims were Americans. Of course, almost all victims were Guatemalans, and many of those were innocent men, women and children. If we are going to use a documentary example to relate conditions of state terrorism in Guatemalan, it seems more appropriate to use examples of Guatemalan victims, of which there were many. For instance, the report "State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection" by the International Center for Human Rights Investigations (CIIDH) observes that “The mass killing of children is one of the most disturbing aspects of state terror during the Lucas García and Ríos Montt regimes. In giving testimonies about indiscriminate massacres, peasant sources often wondered what kind of "sin" (pecado) children could possibly be guilty of to justify their murder by state forces. Yet the army treated many Indian communities as uniformly hostile. Their rhetoric described all residents, even infants, as dangerous "communists," and worthy of death.” This description seems to me to say more about the nature of the state terror than the Diana Ortiz case. That's my opinion and that's (part of) my proposal...any other opinions?BernardL (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, and I like it. If editors here so agree, I'd be in favor of cutting down the Ortiz section (moving that info to its own article, which is currently a stub), and expanding with the material you introduced here, instead. Others thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See no accusation of US involvement. Regarding the Ortiz material, if included we must follow NPOV. No undue weight with paragraph after paragraph presenting arguments from one side while excluding the views of the other side.Ultramarine (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about context and relevant background info. There are lots of sources about US involvement, hence the whole section on it. Its valid and good information that describes how the State terror operated.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The background material is already POV. We should include some descriptions of violence by the insurgents, Cuban support of the insurgents, and positive things done by the government to achieve some NPOV regarding this. More anti-government material not needed. If you want to cut the Ortiz material, then we could reduce the opposing views also. Do you have a proposal?Ultramarine (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave my proposal. Lets see what other editors think. I don't agree with your view of NPOV. NPOV is not achieved by creating an artificial balance. Rather it means reporting all notable POV's in porportion to the academic literature on the subject, and doing so without having the voice of wikipedia take one side over the other. Hence, we use neutral language, and report, with attribution. That is NPOV. If the consensus of the literature in this area makes the Govt. look bad overall, then so be it. Its not our job to make them look good or less bad than what the literature indicates. You should be less worried about what is anti-govt. and more with having the article present an accurate understanding of the concept it is supposed to illuminate. I think the material BernardL has does this better than the extended Ortiz quote. Lets see what other editors think, and go with consensus on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the Ortiz supporting material is not academic sources. A government report is a perfectly acceptable RS for a view.Ultramarine (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have descriptions of the violence by the many children and women who were killed because they were considered to be "communists" by the state terrorists according to the International Center for Human Rights Investigations?BernardL (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is someone accusing the US of this? Otherwise background material, see my previous reply.Ultramarine (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence from the same report on the U.S. involvement...1. “With U.S. guidance, Guatemalan society had become subject to an increasingly powerful military apparatus without any responsibility to civilian authority. The government established a wide-reaching network of counterinsurgency surveillance that it would employ for the next 30 years not only to battle the guerrilla organizations but to also exercise control over the civilian population. Fresh from the conflict in Vietnam, U.S. advisers had the army authorize thousands more military commissioners who became privileged local representatives of the counterinsurgency (see Chapter 18)...Perhaps the most troubling characteristic of Guatemala’s first period of counterinsurgency was the "poisonous flowering" of clandestine terror groups like "Eye for an Eye" and the "New Anticommunist Organization." Most of these paramilitary "death squads" were security forces personnel dressed as civilians; others represented more or less independent interests on the far right of the political spectrum. They converted murder into political theater, often announcing their actions through death lists or decorating their victims’ bodies with notes denouncing communism or common criminality. Their secret nature not only provoked terror in the population, it also allowed the army and police to deny responsibility for a systematic campaign of extra-judicial killing (Aguilera and Imery 1981; Black 1984: 46).” 2. “After Ríos Montt took over, the level of violence increased. Figure 6.4 shows how the number of state killings and disappearances rose even higher in April 1982, Ríos Montt’s first full month in office. The 3,330 documented deaths and disappearances in the CIIDH database that month represent the highest one-month total number of documented violations of the right to life for the entire armed conflict (the actual total is higher). For the first hundred days of the Ríos Montt regime, mass killings continued throughout the highlands, especially in El Quiché and Huehuetenango. Americas Watch, using data from the Peace and Justice Committee and the Guatemala Human Rights Commission, detailed 69 massacres during this period (Americas Watch 1984).”...“In the United States, the switch to Ríos Montt allowed Ronald Reagan’s administration to lobby for a restoration of military aid to Guatemala (cut off by the U.S. Congress in 1977) and an expansion of U.S. intervention throughout the Caribbean Basin. The State Department had previously been reluctant to criticize the Lucas García government. After the March 1982 coup it changed direction and condemned the ousted leader as a terror against his own people, while portraying the Ríos Montt regime as a significant improvement for human rights in Guatemala. In December 1982, President Reagan described Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity and commitment" who is "totally dedicated to democracy" (Schirmer 1998: 33). In resuming military aid to Guatemala, Reagan made it clear that the General could fight the war against his internal opposition as he wished, without regard to human rights considerations and without fear of losing his U.S. funding (Department of State Country Reports 1983; Americas Watch 1985b: 7-8).”... Now please include the reliably sourced balancing material apologizing to the innocent victims.BernardL (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you no longer have any objection to restoring the Ortiz material since you do no longer discuss this. Reply on this if you do. Regarding the accusations of US state terrorism, this is similar to what is already in the article. I am not saying that what the US did should be praised. But for NPOV, we should also mention things like Cuban support, human rights violations by Communists, and the fact the Guatemala was a democracy for long periods where the people voted for the government policy.Ultramarine (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have objections. You don't seem to understand that this is a community editing process by consensus. Allow editors that live in different time zones and with different life schedules to participate in that consensus process rather than constantly steamrolling. As for balancing material, I came up with reliably sourced material for discusion which is close to being ready for inclusion. You should do the same, so that the community can discuss its merits, and what representative proportion it deserves.BernardL (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am getting you right? You want to reduce some of anti-US material Ortiz by replacing it by other anti-US material? The problem is that the article already has undue weight for anti-US material. Regarding the Ortiz material, it must be fairly presented, so if reduced, then the opposing views may also be shortened. But no there is no justification for keeping the current POV state. If keeping the current long material, then also opposing views must be presented in detail. Again, there is already enough anti-US material in the article, so need to add even more. More general opposing views should instead be added.Ultramarine (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your repeating yourself, I will do the same: I don't agree with your view of NPOV. NPOV is not achieved by creating an artificial balance. Rather it means reporting all notable POV's in porportion to the academic literature on the subject, and doing so without having the voice of wikipedia take one side over the other. Hence, we use neutral language, and report, with attribution. That is NPOV. If the consensus of the literature in this area makes the Govt. look bad overall, then so be it. Its not our job to make them look good or less bad than what the literature indicates. You should be less worried about what is anti-govt. and more with having the article present an accurate understanding of the concept it is supposed to illuminate. I think the material BernardL has does this better than the extended Ortiz quote. Lets see what other editors think, and go with consensus on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But you are mostly not citing academic literature. A government report is a RS for a view. No justification for giving this less room.Ultramarine (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard is correct -- again -- and you are wrong -- again. There is no justification for including off-topic, irrelevant, superfluous, or originally-researched content. Your interpretation of "NPOV" is that justifications must be provided for why the U.S. acted as it did. Except that such content is superfluous, irrelevant, off-topic, and -- so far as it ever comes from you -- almost always originally researched. This is a page for discussing the concept of "State Terrorism" and how it applies to the actions and policies of the U.S. It is not a place to discuss or research why the U.S. is constantly intervening in the politics of ostensibly independent Central American states.

Similarly, there are exceedingly few people of any significance who considers Sister Ortiz' testimony to be insignificant or substantially false. So your attempt to cast doubt upon it is actually the only violation of NPOV taking place, here.

Finally, Government Sources are not intrinsically reliable. They must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The material is directly discussing the rape, so I do not understand your claim of off-topic. "there are exceedingly few people of any significance who considers Sister Ortiz' testimony to be insignificant or substantially false", source please. "Government Sources are not intrinsically reliable" Did not say so, but certainly a view that should be included if the government is accused.Ultramarine (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The government sources you have introduced clearly state that, beyond the fact that Sister Ortiz was tortured, they have no conclusions about what did or didn't happen. Please explain to me how a government report that openly admits that it doesn't know the first damn thing about what happened is relevant? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They give some NPOV. Your latest version has eliminated all statements critical of rape accusations. Please respect NPOV. Also, you introduced a a self-published source, [3], not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets see. Your version have 25 lines. None critical of the allegations. Not very neutral.Ultramarine (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the few statements from the report that you include, the report itself dismisses most as unreliable. That is: both the State Department and the DoJ recognize that the few informers who call into question Sister Ortiz' version are unreliable -- and the report itself states this and concludes that it cannot make any definitive statements about the events in question. Thus i have deleted those which the government report itself concludes are not trustworthy and are inconclusive -- which, it turns out, is all of the evidence you have attempted to include.

Finally, of the remaining few that are not openly dismissed by the IOB as unreliable, you have included a few which consist of Guatemalan officials claiming that the cells in question had been officially "closed down" -- which of course does not mean that they weren't being used. Obviously, the IOB report recognized this and concluded that they could not glean any definite knowledge from the intelligence sources they reviewed.

Since the U.S. government itself A) Validated the Ortiz Story, and B) Considered these sources unreliable and inconclusive, i see no reason why you should present them here as somehow casting doubt upon the Ortiz story. This is entirely contrary to the report's conclusions and is clearly dismissed by the IOB when it says that it believes she did, indeed, suffer the torture as described.

Thus, for you to present these excerpts in the way that you are suggesting is an obvious violation of WP:OR -- you are clearly insinuating conclusions into the material that are utterly rejected by the people who wrote the report and the U.S. government's official position. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for equal space, but there should be some mentioning of the opposing views. Further, I note that neither the US court or the IACHR found any responsibility for the US government. Why should this article have such an extremely long section on this? Maybe a few lines and then a see also to the man article on her.Ultramarine (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "opposing views", as you put it, have been rejected by the U.S. government as unreliable. Obviously that means they fail WP:RS. The current article already contains the few points of relevance from the report.

If you want to develop the main article on her and then help us shift the content over there then feel free -- for my part, i am spending all my time rejecting your own demands for deletion. I just don't have time to help. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree we could move most the content to her article? This could solve this dispute.Ultramarine (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is clearly not what i am saying. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. I hope this can solve the dispute. Concrete objections? Ultramarine (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other material moved to main article.Ultramarine (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution regarding Philippine material

I had added several attributions regarding the Philippine material. They were all reverted.[4] Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributions are given in the source. Giving the name of the actual journalist and publication is not needed and gives undo weight to them in particular. They are only reporting a story that other papers also picked up on. They are not originating the claim and are not themselves notable, so there is no need to state that in the text. Let the source provide info as to sourcing of the statements.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The claims are presented as fact when they are often only views. Misrepresentation. Wikipedia must be accurate.Ultramarine (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is accurate, but I agree with you that it could be more NPOV. However, lets wait on this and see with other editors say about it. Lets see what consensus is about this point. I'm willing to grant this to you, looking over it, but I would like to hear others views before we make any changes to make sure we move forward avoiding any further edit warring. Sounds good to you?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version". Or WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. It is an encyclopedia that must be NPOV, follow NOR, and be V. Even if all the editors discussing at some particular time agreed that the Earth was flat on the talk page of the Earth article, that would still not justify stating in the article that the Earth is flat.Ultramarine (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a big issue here. Its called consensus and working with other editors for implementing these policies. Its part of collaborative editing. You don't get to over rule everyone else based on your sole understanding of these policies to the exclusion of other invested editors with opinions on the matter. Why is this basic point so hard for you to grasp?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to be missing what I just stated. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: There is no such thing as a consensus version. Wikipedia must be accurate. There is no justification for having incorrect statements in an encyclopedia.Ultramarine (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing what your saying, but its off point, its a non-sequir to the point I've rasied and you keep ignoring. Even if you understand all other policies, if you miss the one I'm making, you will be a failed/bad editor in many instances.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Wikipedia should contain inaccurate material if this is the "consensus"?Ultramarine (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I"m not but I think you know that. However, the point you miss with your rhetorical question is that its possible that an editor does not understand the policies and thinks something is inaccurate, when its not (or even if it is, the standard is verifiablity not truth in wikipedia), and so consensus on understanding what is proper and what is not, is crucial. You seem to ignore that and determine "truth" according to you and you alone, and disregard consensus, sparking edit wars. Perhaps take a step back and consider that just maybe you are the one who is wrong here, instead of everyone else? At least that is what I think most of the times, as your arguments have been shown many times to be simply false. That is why consensus is so good: many heads are often better than one (provided we are all serious editors following the same policies).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False description. I will just point out that I have been thoroughly reviewed on WP:ANI recently, as you well know, and the consensus of administrator did not agree with the accusations against me.Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Any concrete objections to having proper attribution of claims and statements?Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the issue as one of attribution, as those sources given suffice for attribution. What can be improved is the NPOV wording. I suggest instead of you mentioning exactly which publication and author its from (redundant) that we simply change some of the words to make it more NPOV. For example, state 'It has is argued/alleged that..."etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact source is important in order to judge reliability. For example, Amnesty is more credible than an local internet webpage.Ultramarine (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of the source warrants mention esp. if its making a new claim, and not simply reporting one, as any news paper might do. Exact source is important and that is why its given, supporting the claims made. Any reader can click on the reference to view it. Otherwise, it makes it appear, falsely, that the claim is limited to only what some newspaper reporter reported, or that the paper is notable enough to put it and its author in the main text, instead of leaving it in the references.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the attributions I made was to note that this was the opinion of a journalist. Obviously this should be noted.Ultramarine (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well do you have a source that this was just the opinion of this one journalist? That seems untrue and if so, undue weight for us to mention the claim even. Most likely, this journalist is simply reporting the view that is shared by others based on facts that are widely reported.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not; see in particular "Passive voice" and "Repetition" under WP:AWW#Other_problems; but also, higher up on that page: "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement."

WP:POV is perhaps more to the point, at least regarding this article:

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
  — WP:POV

But again, I rather like "consider removing the statement." The scope of this article has widened; we should therefore proved less detail (referring instead to more narrowly-scoped articles), not more. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless objections I will add attributions. If someone want to delete the statements, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are repeated objections, here, and i must protest that it appears Sidhekin hasn't even bothered to review the material in question (philippines, attributions). The reporters and sources which were reverted in the Philippines' section were clearly reporting on the findings of multiple human rights groups, international governing bodies, and other independent findings. Thus, Ultramarine's attempt to reduce these reports to the opinions of a single newspaper reporter, commentator, or organization are clearly an attempt to introduce misleading inaccuracies and POV language into the article text. I fully support Gio's edits. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a particuarly serious example "Notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", General Jovito Palparan is considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses." Clearly a potential WP:BLP case. No attribution and presented as an undisputed fact.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing facts, and these are facts that are mentioned in several of the sources provided. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He has not been found guilty in a court according to these sources. Until then, BLP should be respected.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal court one can appeal to that will determine whether or not he actually is known as "the Butcher of Mindoro"; so your argument there is clearly insane.

Beyond that issue, however, is the fact that several different sources have cited this as his nom de guerre. Whether you yourself have heard of it is beside the point. Unless you can show us that he is not, in fact, known by this eponym then the material stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Break for Convenience I

But not "is considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses." Remember BLP. Attribution and that is still not proven in court should be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the sources indicate: HRW mentions him by name, and i believe AI does as well. Multiple Philippine newspapers and human rights organizations have squarely placed the blame for these human rights abuses at his feet, and he himself has publicly admitted not only to condoning them, but to actually encouraging them. While he stops short of admitting direct responsibility, within the framework of Human Rights and International Law there is more than enough evidence out there which, when coupled with his own admission, justifies this statement as reasonable -- which, as i remind you, many notable human rights orgs, newspapers, and magazines have already asserted. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no proven in court. Remember BLP. Just asking for attribution and stating what form these allegations are. Innocent until proven guilty. He has not declared himself guilty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on the conclusions of major investigations undertaken by major, notable, neutral, third-party organizations does not violate WP:BLP. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But we should make proper attribution in order to respect BLP. Again, innocent until proven guilty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And since the attributions are already made there is clearly no more point in continuing this ridiculous discussion which has already shifted its point a full three times, conveniently enough each point marked by your inability to continue the previous argument. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an important policy. The current text does not give any source for the claims in the article text or state this is still not proven.Ultramarine (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it is important. And it has not been violated. So no problem -- no deletions need be considered. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that we should presume him guilty before being convicted?Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No assertions about legal culpability have been made. The statements and accompanying evidence provided by reliable sources have merely been reported.

If you feel like a portion of BLP has been violated then i think it is important for you to quote which portion, precisely, you feel has been transgressed, and also how. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses.". Alleged is the common word for charged criminals before found guitly.Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is clear from the sources provided that he is, from the viewpoint of the authors of those reports, considered responsible for the abuses cited in those reports. Further, he has publicly accepted indirect responsibility and direct complicity, and in the context of his military and political offices both of these admissions imply responsibility. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He not accepted that he guilty. Allegations is not a conviction.Ultramarine (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw-man argument. No mention is made of legal guilt. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between punishment or not is hardly a straw-man.Ultramarine (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is completely unintelligible. An utter non-sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between being alleged and free and convicted and in prison seems very tangible.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Newspaper do not state that someone is guilty before convicted. They state alleged.Ultramarine (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a repetition of the same non-sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. Should wikipedia have a lower standard than newspapers and claim people guilty when not proven so in court? Ultramarine (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view.Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views deleted

Double standard since much the anti-US material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. No justification for such a double standard has been given.Ultramarine (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no double standard, and your criterion for inclusion is too simplistic. Its not about exact words for phrasing its about context and subject matter, along with solid sources that root the issue to the topic: state terrorism and the US. So while we need some sources that are direct, once we have those, many others can be supporting material within the same context.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That violates WP:SYN. Why must pro-US view mention "state terrorism", while critical quotes do not even need to mention terrorism? Or even the US, only mentioning an ally?.Ultramarine (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't violate SYN. Syn is when we create a new claim from other claims. That is not being done here because we have sources that root the basic allegation of US involvement in state terror. "Pro-US" whatever that means, has to likewise be within the context of the subject matter, with a valid source that anchors it as well. You don't get to pick and choose what you think will make the US look good, i.e. "pro," if its off topic/off from the context. That would be OR. That is why we reject many of your additions, i.e. the Japan section additions. This is the same standard, and always has been. There has been no SYN or OR, except the material you keep trying to introduce, i.e. "abortion is state terror," when there are NO sources that even mention this, and its out of context. Big difference.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i'd like to state categorically: Ultramarine, the content you have proposed and pushed for is, by far and away, the most "anti-U.S." content on the page. Bar none. You are, without a doubt, the foremost poster here pushing for introduction of content showing the least respect and least patriotism for the United States. So in the future i would appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from such clearly personal insinuations about others, here.

Second, we will remind you once again: once you can find a source that speaks about "state terrorism" from your preferred perspective then we will be happy to include it. All content on this page is sourced to a specific commentator making a specific claim about State Terrorism. You have enforced these rules on the page, and it is very bad faith for you to now request that we break them on your behalf. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is false. For example Chomsky do not mention "state terrorism" in some of his quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sources do use those terms, and Chomsky use of other variations of the words, are within context of the claim (unlike your abortion is state terrorism additions).Giovanni33 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use the same argument regarding the material that you deleted. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't, because you can't: your claims such as abortion is state terrorism do not exist in any source---its pure OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source mentioning "state terrorism" in the Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon section. Should they be removed?Ultramarine (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't believe you. Everytime I checked, you were proven to be wrong. I bet if I checked this time, the same would be true. I'll get around to it sometime tomorrow. I suspect you are mistaken and state terrorism as a concept within context is indeed discussed.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of "state terrorism" in the quotes given in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you, either. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Easily solved. Just read the article. If you find a quote in the article in these sections including "state terrorism", then report it here.Ultramarine (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read them. I found them. So now i know you are wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we can easily solve this. Just add the quote here.Ultramarine (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It was provided many times before, including after this below. The section is completely off topic and should remain out of the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no quote from the article from these sections including "state terrorism" has been provided. If there is one, please state it.Ultramarine (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, no double standard please. Much critical material quoted do not mention "terrorism" or "state terrorism". So double standard to exclude supporting material on the same grounds.Ultramarine (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits. This section is off topic. If other sections are, then you can make your case, but saying others are is not an argument for why this one should stay.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" These quotes do not mention terrorism, state terrorism, or even the US. No double standard for critical and supporting material or between different sections.Ultramarine (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this section was not about State terrorism. If someone can show me how its about this, please do. I have removed it.76.126.64.74 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no double standard as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Respect consensus. You are the only one that insists on this off topic material. Since you are adding it back without consensus, and without explanation as to how its on topic, I will revert it shortly. As you say, no double standards allowed. Keep material on topic, per sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this was continued in Opposing views section below. Please continue there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to San Juan

San Juan is given four direct quotes and as well as other citations. Undue weight to a single person. I propose shortening this to may two citations. Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Its only undue weight if his views are out of being given more weight than should be accorded. Are his views minority views within the field, or pretty mainstream within literature of the field? If San Juan has written a lot about the topic and is recognized as a major contributor within the this literature (terrorology), then its not undue weight. Otherwise, just saying "four is too many, but two is ok" sound rather arbitrary.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for all of your claims please.Ultramarine (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the source this is my understanding of NPOV policies as an editor here for a significant time period. My claims are based on this and logic: how do you determine what is too much? Its relative to the academic landscape, otherwise your making rather arbitrary decisions based on your own bias. If you think this is undue weight you need a better argument than simply saying it should be two instead of four. I am saying, I'm open to looking at that possibility but we need to qualify that against an appropriate yard stick, so to speak.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no sources for your claims of his reliability or importance for this subject, then there is no justification for giving him so much weight.Ultramarine (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You have no sources to support your assertion of "undue weight." Thus, there is no justification for giving your proposal any serious consideration. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with stone--I think we are saying the same thing to Ultra here) To Ultra: Well you are the one that is proposing making some changes to the long standing version, and so the burden of making an argument to supports the changes you advance lies with you. Convince us editors and gain consensus by making a valid argument, and we will listen. So far you have not done so, and therefore I'm not convinced that we need to cut down this particular scholar's comments.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the editor who want to include or keep material who must give the sources. See WP:V.Ultramarine (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the source is given. I'm not making the clam in the article that this scholar is of such and such import, etc. So no claim of that nature is being made. You are the one who is making a substantive claim regarding his lack of standing, yet you failed to come up with an argument supporting this assertion.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the inclusion of this material. You are, so you have to provide the notability evidence.Ultramarine (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already shown his notability on many occasions: fulbright scholar, philippines forum, noted philippine academic, noted philippine poli-sci commentator, multiple books treating this particular subject, etc. You know that. Once again: if he is not notable then it is now for you to show us, not the other way around. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, see WP:V. You have to give the sources since you are arguing for inclusion. Sources for the above claims please. Otherwise I must assume that they do not exist.Ultramarine (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since these sources have already been repeatedly provided you there is no point in providing them again; moreover, WP:V and WP:RS are relevant to material presented within the article itself. After having already provided the evidence once, I am now under no responsibility to provide you with sources demonstrating that E. San Juan Jr is who i say he is or has achieved what i say he has. Since i (and BernardL) have both already provided evidence showing the people here E. San Juan's qualifications and since it is you who are challenging his reliability and notability, the burden of evidence is now upon you: either show us that he is not a fulbright scholar, that he has not published any books about state terrorism, and that he is not one of the leaders of the philippine's forum, or provide us with a source that clearly eclipses his notability and reliability and that rejects his opinions as relevant.

Either one will do. For our part, however: E. San Juan's credentials have already been provided (they are, in fact, available in several of those sources cited in the article) and you have yet to explain why they are inadequate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Since i (and BernardL) have both already provided evidence showing the people here E. San Juan's qualifications". No, you have not. If continuing to claim this, give a diff. Or add them to the Wikipedia page about him which very much needs references. Regardless, assuming all can be verified, why should this person have more space than anyone else in this article? I fail to see that he much more important than for example Amnesty.Ultramarine (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They are already in the sources provided in the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add them to the E. San Juan, Jr. article and we have solved two problems at once.Ultramarine (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, which source? Remember, he cited numerous times in this article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave that for you. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can of course have no idea where such possible statements may be hidden in numerous sources. I must conclude that you fail to present sources showing his notability. As such, since it is you who have responsibility since it is you who are arguing for inclusion, notability has not been proven. One or two ciations should be enough. Which should we include?Ultramarine (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He is a noted commentator on the subject in question. Fulbright scholar, leader of the philippines' forum, author of several books on the subject. Citations, therefore, are justified. You have no argument for deleting them. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Much more important than anyone else in this article? More important than Amnesty? Your claims are still unverifiable. Please give the exact source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As i told you: pick any two of the included sources and you fill find most of what i have posted here validated at the bottom of the article. Beyond that, i'm not going to spend any more time jumping through your busywork whoop-de-do's. This has already been demonstrated for you several times, and at any rate a quick google search will prove me correct. Your demands beyond that are clearly just petulant whining about your unwillingness to be cooperative, assume good faith, and do your own proper share of the work around here.

There is nothing in the wikipedia guidelines that says i need to show sources on the discussion page to satisfy petulant demands. I have already indicated where the information is and that it can be found. If you want to google it for verification then please -- do so. If you don't, then fine -- don't. But your insistence that i must google it for you and post the results here -- after having already done it twice before -- clearly has no basis in wikipedia guidelines or policy. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree on me adding equally many statements by Rummel?Ultramarine (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I need to see what the statements are and how well they are sourced. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel concept of democide is state terrorism.[[5] Thus we can cite his numerous well-cited books on the subject.Ultramarine (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As i just said: When you start asking my opinion about specific proposals for article content then i will give it. Until then i cannot say one way or another. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Rummel's research on which state has done most democide=state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot answer a question that has not been asked. Please float your proposed edits here so that i may respond. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rummel research on shows that the US, like other democracies, have a comparatively low level of state terrorism."Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A) That statement does not address the Philippines and is inappropriate in the Philippine section.

B) That statement does not dispute that the U.S. is responsible for State Terror in the Philippines, and so is inappropriate for that section.

Obviously, stating that the U.S. has a "comparatively low" level of state terrorism may be useful in other parts of the article, but not in this particular section. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sections is fine. For example in the general section in the beginning we could have several quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: show us what you are proposing. Also, i would suggest that you provide full context within the aritcle. It does nobody any good for you to float a single sentence up and ask if you can include it. Unless we know where you want to put it we obviously cannot say whether or not it will be a useful or accurate addition. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose in the intro in order to achieve NPOV. Same text.Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think "several quotes" would be appropriate for the intro. However I think it the above passage would be very good for a general counter section. The lead should feature 2 points against, 2 points for as a nice balance. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. One such point could be Rummel.Ultramarine (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i would suggest that Ultramarine start a new thread. This one is about San Juan Jr. Further, i point out -- again -- that Ultramarine's proposed change is unclear and cannot be accepted unless he provides us with some sort of context for the proposed change. Saying "in the intro" doesn't help enough to achieve consensus. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Already a thread about intro so we should not discuss that further here. I will add some proposals regarding the general section shortly.Ultramarine (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The rape and Nicaragua?

Stone put to sky made a blank revert again inserting the strange claim that the Sister won a case against Nicaragua. Please explain.[6]Ultramarine (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits, Ultramarine. I "inserted" nothing, and my justification is given in the summary: your edits introduced serious textual inaccuracies and unacceptable POV language. If you would like to introduce your sources again then feel free. If you continue to insist upon introducing major edits without first working with the other editors here to guarantee that your edits -- which consistently suffer from bad grammar, original research, violations of WP:SYN, point-of-view language, and terrible logical inaccuracies -- then i can only say that you should expect to see them reverted. Frankly, i just don't have the time to go around hunting after all of your grammar mistakes and guideline or policy violations. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you did not read what you reverted and reintroduced a strange factual error.Ultramarine (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it. The language that stated she "won" a case was introduced by you. I reverted it. The original language stated that she "brought" a case - nothing more. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You reintroduced that she won a case against Nicaragua. A very strange claim. Are you really arguing that? Ultramarine (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I just checked and i don't see the passage you're speaking of. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not reading what you add? "In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua". Ultramarine (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sister+Ortiz+civil+court+case+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

Stone put to sky (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I see nothing there regarding Nicaragua. I thought we were in the Guatemala section?Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see, now. Just read right past that word. Now corrected. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The text is still factually incorrect. She won a case against the general as a person. Not the whole state.Ultramarine (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a source for that? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The source that you deleted when you reverted.Ultramarine (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And which source would that be? There were three or four. Also: what are your proposed changes, exactly? As i remember, you had badly mangled the sentence into a run-on, as well as introducing a bunch of irrelevant POV stuff to cast aspersions onto the Sister. So what, exactly, are you suggesting? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted three or four sources without checking? Here it is [7]. As seen in the rape section of the edit you blankly reverted,[8] I removed the false references to the government of Guatemala. There was also only one defendant, not several.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, i did not remove them without checking. I removed statements that were introducing irrelevancies, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies into the article. It just so happened that these were supported by the sources you're now citing for me.

Having said that, i will be happy to help out with correcting the text but of course i first need to know what the sources you're referring to are and what are the proposed changes. I can't give an opinion on a question that hasn't been asked. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, source is here [9] and proposed changes regarding the sentence in question can be seen here, in the Sister Ortiz section.[10]

Well, i agree that the passage as it currently stands is a little inaccurate. The sources to which it refers are a 1996 case brought against Guatemala under the IACHR, but improperly associated with a 1992 event (my fault, actually; apologies). The material you want to introduce is the actual 1992 case. Both instances support strong reasons for inclusion. This looks like another instance where it would be good to sandbox and proceed carefully: your current proposals are inconsistent with information later in the section.

As it stands, however, it would be easiest to simply change the 1992 citation to reflect the 1996 report. The 1992 case is more effective, however, so i support moving the example over to the 1992 case; but that will involve a substantial re-write, which i really don't have time for. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to my proposed version as per above? Very little change actually.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just made some very detailed objections and suggestions. Once again:

Well, i agree that the passage as it currently stands is a little inaccurate. The sources to which it refers are a 1996 case brought against Guatemala under the IACHR, but improperly associated with a 1992 event (my fault, actually; apologies). The material you want to introduce is the actual 1992 case. Both instances support strong reasons for inclusion. This looks like another instance where it would be good to sandbox and proceed carefully: your current proposals are inconsistent with information later in the section.

As it stands, however, it would be easiest to simply change the 1992 citation to reflect the 1996 report. The 1992 case is more effective, however, so i support moving the example over to the 1992 case; but that will involve a substantial re-write, which i really don't have time for. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a little sandbox and made some clarification, mentioning both the US court and IACHR. OK, regarding these sentences? User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3Ultramarine (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed a blog since it is not an allowed source. I am sure you agree.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not "a blog". That is a student group website that happens to use Blogger software to publish its articles. From their FAQ:

This site was created and is administered by GSAS Alliance for Justice in the Middle East (AJME), a student group at Harvard University. The website is part of our campaign to shed light on Harvard’s pattern of admitting and hiring individuals with publicly documented records of war crimes and/or human rights abuses.

A student group self-publishing material is not a particularly reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The information on the page in question is sourced with multiple links to sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V. The source, therefore, stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem. "International Socialist Review" is hardly a reliable source. Also make statements not found in her later testimony. Objections to removal?Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an utterly false assertion. The International Socialist Review qualifies as a newspaper, and the article in question is straight journalism reporting on the Ortiz case. If you can come up with another article that states the same thing then i will be happy to add it, but as it is there is no problem with the source as it currently stands. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember WP:REDFLAG]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Dubious far left paper is not exceptional. Very strange that sister does not make such accusations in the testimony.Ultramarine (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: "by invitation after having given that year's commencement speech at the SOA" The given source is not about this at all.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected this in the sandbox. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[11] is a self-published source. Not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Regardless, very minor paper at best. Remember WP:REDFLAG.Ultramarine (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the paper isn't making an extraordinary claim, so REDFLAG is irrelevant. The paper is simply restating something that was, at one time, widely reported. The link that was provided before has gone out of business; but that doesn't change the fact that Gramajo gave the commencement at the SOA that year, nor that many people reported on it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper stats 1991, the Court case was 1995.Ultramarine (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Filed in late '91, deliberations begin in '92, and it's decided in early '95. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you are claiming the article is incorrect on the basis of a randomly picked fact, i think it would be more accurate for you to show us the source demonstrating that the article is incorrect. I have shown that the article doesn't make false statements; anyone who's ever filed a legal case knows that A) Initial filings take place weeks and sometimes months before deliberations begin, and B) the media sometimes reports the trial as beginning when filings took place and sometimes when the deliberations/arguments begin. This is common sense. I'm not going to bother sourcing it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, your version have 25 lines. None critical of the allegations. Not very neutral.Ultramarine (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version does not respect NPOV. It only has arguments supporting one side of the story.Ultramarine (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the same section in two different places on talk. I suggest you pick one and stick with. My proposal is here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3 Other material moved to main article.Ultramarine (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert of Guatemala material

Stone put to sky made a blank revert of the Guatemala section. Please explain.[12]Ultramarine (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits, Ultramarine. I "inserted" nothing, and my justification is given in the summary: your edits introduced serious textual inaccuracies and unacceptable POV language. If you would like to introduce your sources again then feel free. If you continue to insist upon introducing major edits without first working with the other editors here to guarantee that your edits -- which consistently suffer from bad grammar, original research, violations of WP:SYN, point-of-view language, and terrible logical inaccuracies -- then i can only say that you should expect to see them reverted. Frankly, i just don't have the time to go around hunting after all of your grammar mistakes and guideline or policy violations. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do not point out any concrete objections, then there can be no good faith improvements. What concretely do you object to? Ultramarine (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not "point out" objections. You delete material, introduce bias, and introduce factual, grammatical, syntactical, and logical mistakes without any consideration or input from your fellow editors. Thus, it really is because of your own behavior that there can now no longer be any "good faith" improvements. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing constructive, just general claims. If you want to cooperate in good faith, then please point out concrete errors so they can be corrected. I am eagerly waiting for you cooperation.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already pointed them out repeatedly. Concrete objections: introduction of POV language, logical and factual inaccuracies, poor grammar, poor syntax, no basis for proposed deletions. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is so vague that it is not constructive. Again, I really want to work in Good Faith with you. So please, could you point out for example the POV language so this could be fixed. In Good Faith respond to this humble request.Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just show me what you're proposing before you put it up on the page. Please cooperate with this humble, good-faith request. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is my test sandbox: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Please point out the POV language.Ultramarine (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph i've changed a couple of minor things. The second sentence needs to be worded more carefully, but i'm not sure how to do so in a way that will satisfy you; "nominally" is an indicator that it wasn't really a democracy, but a bit subtle for an 8th grade reading level (i.e. -- encyclopedia entry). It would be better to either explicitly point out that the U.S. repeatedly instigated coups against whatever "leaders" they didn't like (replacing them with brutal military dictatorships) or -- as i would prefer -- to include a word that unmistakably indicates that the Guatemalan "democracy" was not genuine. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can quote for example Freedom House showing that Guatemala was at least partially democratic, except around 1980-85. If you want to add a source with an opposing view, fine? Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it up and i'll let you know what i think. There's no point in discussing something i can't see. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Three comments:

• "Partially free...by Freedom House" really doesn't mean anything. Freedom House and its idiosyncratic rankings aren't notable enough to cite without explanation, and without explanation "partially free" doesn't really mean anything. Further, if you do try to spend a lot of time explaining this ranking then you're opening up a can of worms that begs challenges of OR, SYN, and POV-pushing.
• I myself don't trust anything that's only got commentators like Fukuyama, Henninger and Zakaria quoted on the opening page. These are three of the most conservative corporate journalists out there ("corporate journalist" as opposed to, say, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who aren't really journalists, or Robert Fisk or John Pilger, who aren't corporate). They tend to represent extremely pro-establishment, government-sponsored opinions. Thus, i think a better source needs to be gotten for the information in question (also re: notability, see above).
• The source provided is just a link to the website of the group that issued the report. I'd prefer to have a link to the report in question, at the very least. As it is, even i -- who want to read up and find out what all this "partially free" stuff means -- have no way of tracking it down without a lot of work to find what i want.

Personally, since i'd rather not get into all of these various issues about "exactly how free is free", i think the point could be just sidestepped and not included. If you insist upon some sort of mention, however, then i would like to remind you: when a government labors under the full knowledge that, at any point, they could be violently executed by a U.S. sponsored military coup, then even under the best of electoral circumstances, when democratically sponsored decisions are in conflict with clearly enunciated U.S. policy the latter will always be imposed over the former, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.

And that last one clearly means that "freedom", in any real sense, has been eliminated. At least from my perspective (and i'm quite confident i could find a lot of sources that say the same thing).

So, to recap: yeah, i think the source is provocative and notable, and i think you have a good case for inclusion of some sort of point along these lines; no, i do not think it currently adds anything meaningful to the article; yes, i am very afraid that this will lead to more edit-warring and unnecessary expansion of the article; yes, i think that it would be best just to let it lie and not mention it.

So personally, i'd rather see the issue sidestepped, but if you insist on some sort of allusion to this idea then i really think a better source with more carefully worded commentary is needed. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom House rankings are cited in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. Regardless, claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion, see NPOV. There is a link to the exact rankings for each year in the given link. There is no requirement to have online sources. Many of the quoted sources in this article are not online. If you want to add a sourced opposing view, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the source was reliable, so you are introducing -- yet again -- another straw man. What i did point out is that "partially free" is an essentially meaningless statement, and unless you can show us what is meant by "partially free" then there really isn't any case for including it. Also, i pointed out that there should be as little elaboration as possible upon this point because it is borderline information to the entire article. So your next step is clear:

Explain what is meant by "partially free" and propose an alternate wording. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Partly free means 3.0 to 5.0 points on their ranking. See Freedom in the World.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link from word Partly Free to the page on the report.Ultramarine (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"3.0 to 5.0 points on their ranking" is equally meaningless. Your explanation does nothing to solve the problem. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I added a link to another page. Those interested can go there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And once again: you have provided no explanation of what those numbers mean nor how they were arrived at. Moreover, you haven't provided a link or a direct source to the report dealing with El Salvador over the time period in question. Finally, the third statement in the first paragraph is clearly problematic: over the time period from the early 60s to the mid 90s, El Salvador suffered from a far sight more than just one dictator. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the scores for the period.[13] Those interested in what FH means with Partly Free can easily find this by following the link from the word to the Freedom in the World page. If you want to add a sourced opposing view regarding dictators, please do.Ultramarine (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have gone to the page you link to and it says nothing whatsoever about how the scores are generated, what they precisely mean, or who did the collating. Until you can find us that information and post it to the page we cannot even consider the statement, much less include it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link regarding the methodology to the Freedom in the World page.Ultramarine (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Break for Convenience, I

Your link is is simply a link to the Freedom House page, which clearly does not have a complete description of their methodology and measurements. Moreover, here on Wikipedia we find this quotation from K.A. Bollen, PhD:

The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticised by social scientist K. A. Bollen for its perceived bias towards countries with pro-US positions.[17] Bollen argues that by relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology falls into what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."

There is no need to include this particular line in the section, Ultramarine. First, whether or not some people (and really, that's all you're saying: some people) believed Guatemala to be "partly free" or not is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. was involved in the promulgation of State Terror, there. Second, by including this particular statement you are actually opening up the article to include an entire section treating the quality of freedom in Guatemala, which -- believe it or not -- would only make your position on this issue look much worse and make the entire section on Guatemala and U.S. involvement there look much more terrible.

At any rate, if you do insist on including this metric then i will continue to insist that you find us a clearly worded, lengthy treatment of exactly how the metric was generated and what it means. Otherwise i cannot support its inclusion. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to include a lengthy definition in this page any more than than an article on a presidential candidate must include a long description of the methodology used in opinion surveys. That is for other articles of external links. This general important background information. Obviously if the US did not support an outright dictatorship but where the majority more or less agreed with fighting the insurgents, then this affects US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the definition needed to be included on the page. What i said was that a statement asserting "Guatemala was partially free" is meaningless unless we know what the "partially free" means. Similarly, saying "Guatemala scored between 3 and 5 on the Freedom House scale of Freedom" is equally meaningless. So in order for us to create a meaningful statement, we need to know what a "score between 3 and 5" means; and the only way to know what a score like that means is to see how they created the score. But i haven't seen that, yet, so i can't possibly help you write up an accurate summary of what the score means.

In fact, for all we know it may actually be the case that the Freedom House score doesn't take into account any factors that touch upon our current page content -- in other words, it may be that the score is completely irrelevant to our current discussion. At any rate, until you can show us some sort of description of how this score was measured we can't answer any of these questions. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now we know what Partly Free means since a link to the methodology has been given on the Freedom in the World page. Linked from the proposed article.Ultramarine (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claims of "does not have a complete description of their methodology and measurements." is unsourced. Since it is used in numerous peer-reviewed studies it is a reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor introducing the material to provide proper sourcing. As of now, i have not received a clear answer about what sorts of measurements and standards are used to arrive at this "partly free" conclusion. Until i receive an answer to that question i cannot even consider the material for inclusion, much less allow it to be included. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct link: [14]Ultramarine (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote for me where that material discusses methodology and measurements. I have looked and cannot find it. If it is there then i would like to see it. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole text is about the methodology.Ultramarine (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then quote for me the relevant portions, because in that text i see nothing that describes the specific metrics used to arrive at their measure. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "Freedom In The World 2006 Checklist Questions And Guidelines" There they have a point system with criteria.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: looking at that list i have no idea how or why they arrived at their conclusions about the "state of freedom" in 1980's era Guatemala. Frankly, i think it's absurd that they would suggest the Guatemala of that era was "less free" than the Cuba of that era, and unless i see some sort of concrete explanation for how they reached their conclusions then i can only presume that they are an unreliable, fringe source. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may of course personally disagree with rankings. But this a widely used ranking in political science research, so a notable source. The correlations with the Polity data is very high.Ultramarine (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: i am contesting the inclusion of this grade as meaningless, not on the basis of my own distaste for it. Unless we can derive a meaningful statement from the grade given then we cannot include the content. Simply saying "partly free" or "3-5 on a scale of 1-7" is meaningless; the content in an encyclopedia must allow people to make up their own mind, not interpret the data for them.

For instance, if we were to find a source that maintained that any nation practicing genocide scored an automatic 0 on a scale of 1-100 of political freedom, while any nation that provided universal healthcare, abolished the death penalty, and had renounced genocide scored an automatic 95, then that source would say that Cuba scored 95, Guatemala scored 0, and the U.S. somewhere between (but less than Cuba). Obviously, the metric is meaningless unless we know what is being measured and how. So unless you can show me what guatemala scored during the time period in question, explain why, and show me how the metrics were used, then i object that we cannot include the statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to criticize the peer-reviewed paper which has used these rankings since they are valuable, then I suggest you publish in a scholarly journal. Wikipedia is not the place. I suggest you contact FH if you want the very detailed points and arguments used by the researchers. The final scores have already been linked to.Ultramarine (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did i fail to make myself clear?

Including a grade is irrelevant unless people know what the object in question is being graded upon. Unless we know the methodology, metrics, and evaluative technique then the statement cannot be rephrased. If it cannot be rephrased then it cannot be included. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I am with Stone on this one - What exactly does a single source definition of 'freedom' on a 1-7 scale have to do with State Terrorism and the US? It is not as if the "Freedom House scale" is a standard and widely used measurement like "mph" or "GDP" or "literacy rate" that a general reader will have an acquaintance with and be able place information in some context. And giving the context will even more expand the article out of the scope of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also. This is just another classic example of the methodological flaw that is a classic violation of SYN. We do not get to pick and choose among arguments that we feel make a counter point, unless that source itself makes such an argument related to US state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to the methodology has been given. Good enough for peer-reviewed studies.Ultramarine (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I refer to your method of reasoning for the inclusion of material that that results if SYN/OR violations. You are choosing the counter arguments, instated of reporting the sources own counter arguments. This method is flawed.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that all sources not mentioning terrorism should be removed? Like most of those cited against the US?Ultramarine (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you one more time to kindly put the tired "EVERY source must have the phrase state terrorism" piffle away and not bring it up again. We have been over and over and over and over that point with you. One final analpgy. Your demand for a single Yes or No answer to the question "Does a source need to include the phrase 'state terrorism'?" is like asking "Is it legal to drive 55 miles per hour?" The answer is, as you have been told numerous times, "It depends on the context." In certain areas, it is indeed legal to drive 55. In others, it is not legal to drive 55. No it is not a "double standard" - it is a context related standard. Now PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop wasting your time and ours with this ridiculous line of bad faith editing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this cannot be cited against this source unless there is a double standard. Notability and reliability established by use in academic literature. Link to methodology given, those wanting even more detail can contact FH. So no reason for exclusion.Ultramarine (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not be logical to assume that your question warrants an answer, because its the same question you've asked before, and many editors, including myself, have already answered it. Yet you ask it again. So I have to assume its simply not a serious question. But if you want an answer, just go above and read the many good responses to it already given many times. No need to repeat it here. What is clear to everyone but you is that there is a consistent standards (no double standard), even if you choose to ignore its existence.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See the "Opposing views deleted" above. Also, remember, you stated there "I'll get around to it sometime tomorrow." I am waiting.Ultramarine (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to because another editor checked out your claims, and as I suspected, they were false.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact just to humor myself, and once again give you the benefit of the doubt, I took a quick look. I did not have to look too hard or far: right in the first paragraph the clear claim stands out: "U.S. policy of continues...sponsorship of terrorism in Iran."[139][140]. You continue to lose credibility every time you make false claims. I will also point out that to tell a lie is considered a violation of WP policy on civility.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of false statements presented. The issue was the inclusion of the words "state terrorism". Since none has been found, the issue is resolved and the opposing views sections should be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference, hence your argument is pure sophistry. When a state is accused of sponorship of terror, that my friend, is state terrorism. Its like you arguing that someone who was murdered was not killed because it does not say "killed.' Notice how this clearly exposes your double standard with wanting to include Abortion as State terrorism, when there is no mention of a State perpetrating Terror in the form of abortion. As many others have said: context, context, context. We humans are smart enough not to act like robots or computer programs. We can grasp the meaning of language and understand context. I assume you are human and do have these abilities. Every time you repeat this fallacious line of reasoning (many times already), after you are well aware how invalid it is, it looks like you are being dishonest, and that is what is uncivil.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Break II

So, I think all the objections has been answered. Any still remaining? Ultramarine (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think there is one point that still hasn't been addressed. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one?Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The one where you acknowledge that we have a good point and stop trying to include irrelevant, meaningless content. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a constructive criticism. Anything concrete? Ultramarine (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Everything just above this section, going back about ten days. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a general statement is not very constructive. Objections have been answered. Do you want to make a further comment or add something new?Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Such a general statement is not very constructive." So now you see why we have been asking you for the past month to provide DETAILS for your concerns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have? Could you give an example of when not providing details. Regardless, do anyone have any concrete remaining objection on this issue.Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Are you REALLY serious?

• "Editors have asked that if any of the above claims have any veracity to them, to please point out the text in question so that it can be looked at and fixed- Giovanii Feb 16"
• "But the article doesn't claim that the US ordered the rape. Concentrate on the article, please."— the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 "
• "Where in the article do we say that the rape is state terrorism by the US? I cannot see it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 "
• "Why don't you deal with the actual claims, instead of your straw man claim?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"

(emphasis added) These are the first four that are still showing on this page that jumped out at me. Do you really want me to continue? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These are related to general discussion of if the article should be a general dumping grounds for all sorts of allegations. Even if the allegations do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. I have on several occasions provided specific examples. Like quotes in the article from Amnesty and HRW not mentioning terrorism or the US. I can repeat them again if desired. I have as well as pointed out the double standard regarding this, where such critical material is included while supporting material is excluded on exactly the same grounds. If you have anything more to add to this discussion, please add to the "Opposing Views deleted" above.Ultramarine (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These are all related to your request [15] to show when we have asked you to provide specifics instead of generalities. And agreed - this line of conversation does not have much to do with content of the actual article, but it is another piece of evidence that if you have ignored all these requests for specifics or have never read them that your editing presence here may be less than a good faith attempt at improving the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for evidence of not providing details. If you have any, please state them. If shown that I have missed something, I will add it or retract my argument. Again, if you want to add something more regarding the general issue of that previous discussion, the double standard regarding citations, please add them to "Opposing Views deleted" above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I may have misunderstood your comment. My apologies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat again. Do anyone have any concrete remaining objection to my Guatemala proposal and if so concretely why?Ultramarine (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This section has become a wall of text, what is your proposal? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The background is not complete, hopefully someone can discuss the appropriate years, 1954. I also do not get the Freedom House mention since its not related to the appropriate starting years as well. It also does not cover when a US backed government was in power, or when there was not one. Is there a comparison perhaps that can be used, for example if Freedom House has said Guatemala's tanking was related to the backing of the government, or who was in power? I also do not like all the SOA stuff at the bottom, its a long section, perhaps SOA related issues should get its own section? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of those things are not included in the current version as well. On the other hand, the proposed version has a background section and some neutral background material which the current one does not. Obviously more improvements can be added in the future. SOA could well be a separate section. FH does not consider US backing or not in their rankings of the degree of democracy. This general important background information. Obviously if the US did not support an outright dictatorship but where the majority more or less agreed with fighting the Communist rebels, then this affects US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused on the relevance of the "freedom rating" if its not covering years on either side, nor the full period. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use the Polity data instead. It covers the whole period.Ultramarine (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the Polity data? It seems like its more appropriate if it covers the full period. Can you present it for everyone to review? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Polity data series. Varies between -5 to 3 (on a scale from -10 to 10) during the Civil war except for the Monti dictatorship. 3 After 1986. 8 after 1996. 2 in 1954.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it covers the full period and you have someone using it in relation to Guatemala, that sounds a lot better and on point with the article. Are they both rating "freedom"? I find that an odd thing to measure, perhaps the sentence will need to be expanded to explain what characteristics are being used. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Degree of democracy is a better summary. Various freedoms are included in this. The Polity project has a lot of information on their webpage for those interested in the gory details.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not particularly interested, I think we need to explain to the user in a sentence or two, how the information is being arrive at, according to Polity, and what it is showing. If you can update the sandbox accordingly, and let me know that would be great. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to explain without many technical details. I added the scores for every year to the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks messy, is there anyway to show context, for instance the Polity score during the regime of US backed Johnson was 5, while following his overthrow in 1559 the score dropped to 3. Just an example or form that would give context. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not have any exact data on degree of US support. The score certainly declined after the 1954 coup, was worst under Montt, and improved greatly after the end of the war.Ultramarine (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't keep it in the form it is currently, its messy and does not show why its important, or how it relates, it is just a jumble of numbers and years. I would reccomend you take the time to frame the stats and you can have something very nice. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed. See sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

New quotes

In 1984 Human Rights Watch reported on Guatemala, stating: “Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”

“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)

“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)

“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)

In a section of the report entitled “The U.S. Role," it reports:

“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)

“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)

“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala."

Giovanni33 added this material without previous discussion. The Guatemala government material seems to add little new to accusations already there. Cannot add every Guatemala government critical quote ever published to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

False, it was discussed on talk. The material was added to the talk page over a week ago by BernardL. The material is valid and gives a better idea of the nature of State Terrorism, than the extended Sister Ortiz quotes. Hence removal of the latter and insertion of the former referenced material--a week after discussion too place.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right was discussed. Also disputed. Regardless, the material mentioning the US may have a place although there is now much similar material in this section which should be summarized.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

Stone put to sky writes "Reasons already given: POV language, Inaccurate text, improper linking"[16]

However, these are at this moment not mentioned in the sections where these changes were discussed. See "Misrepresentation of US position restored" "Counter-arguments regarding Gladio report deleted" above. Also, you restored the material moved to Wikiquote. Why?Ultramarine (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

US allegations of State Sponsors of Terrorism

Whoever added this section please take the time to summarize, copying and pasting entire sections of a website is not beneficial to the article. Just rephrase and source accordingly. Thanks. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be Ultramarine.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he is not answering, I want to point out that I also object to this sloppy method of copying and pasting several whole sections in their entirety, from one source, one website. Besides not being the correct style/format, it creates NPOV and undue weight problems. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site for the US State Dept.'s views: presentation of their views should be explained more than one source, and properly balanced, summarized, and in proper purportion. There is a lot of information/claims that were just copy and pasted and which have nothing to do with claims of State terrorism, as well. I suggest we move this off to a sandbox to be properly worked on, and then when its ready for inclusion per consensus, we include it back. Thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Article still has much more critical material. No violation of NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your response is a non-response to the issues raised.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who stated "creates NPOV and undue weight problems". Also, no double standard please. Lots of the US critical quotes do not mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What I objected to with the sloppy copying and pasting of entire sections of a website, with no care if they actually fit in this article. Also there was no cosensus for adding all this material. Some of it is valid but it needs to be summarized and material that is clearly not related to allegations of state terrorism by the US against other countries is also included in this copy and past job you did. I do not understand why editor are edit warring over this. I looked at the anon ip's attempt to clean this up and it seems like a good job. I would ask those editor who are edit warring to at least come to the talk page and discuss--preferably instead of edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it discusses terrorism and the US it obviously fits.Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the section for utter worthlessness. Copyedit, then reinsert. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires the views of both sides. Still more critical than supporting arguments regarding the US.Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides? Yes, indeed. But what you had was just one side from one source--in whole--and even if it was not even on topic. That has been objected by many editors. Others have attempted to trim it to make it better and revlevant, but you simply revert them for your sloppy copy and paste.

Ad the same time, I note that you blank most of the sourced material and Guatamala. Wikipedia is not a mirror for State.gov., and use of a single source should be a summary of what the source says that is ON TOPIC to charges of State terrorism. What you did was neither. Lastly, you never presented any of this info to talk first for other editors to comment on it first. As usual you not only ignored but then defied consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The US government certainly deserves more room than other sources since it is the source and target of all the various allegations which the article discusses. Again, npov requires the views of both sides. Imagine a court case where there are many who bring different charges but the defendant is just allowed as much time as one of those of who make accusations. Still more critical than supporting arguments regarding the US. "I note that you blank most of the sourced material and Guatamala." False. "Lastly, you never presented any of this info to talk first for other editors to comment on it first." Same applies to for example the page move or recent additions to the Nicaragua section. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The US government certainly deserves more room than other sources" ummm - in general this is actually a big 'no'. As the subject of the the article, comments from the US Government are rife with potential conflict of interest. WP articles need to be based on published third party interpretations/analysis. (a section listing who the US govt includes on its official list of "State Sponsors of terrorism" may be an exception - the statements of the govt. are fine primary sources, but analysis should be done by other parties.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." None applies. Statements by for example the Cuban government are as least as problematic as US government statements. Regardless, I moved the material to a better main article in favor of a brief summary section.Ultramarine (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this context, administrative documents would be a term that covers the US government's publication of lists of states it considers sponsors of terrorism. The government presumably has other evidence that has informed its decision to label a country a sponsor of terrorism, but in the consideration of which countries the US has named sponsors of terror, the government's published lists are primary sources. (And while statements of the Cuban government should also be taken with a grain of salt, that is why the other supporting background information has been included along with Granma's statements.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Administrative documents" refers tax records etc. The list is a secondary or tertiary source based on other documents. No general prohibition against the views of governments in WP.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said that there WAS a general prohibition against the views of governments in WP? My initial comment was just stating that you seemed to have made an inaccurate statement that was overly broad. (And in the context of "Nations the US has declared state sponsors of terrorism", lists published by the US government are primary sources, whether you want to call them administrative documents or any other name.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not simply a list but a synthesis of many documents explaining the US view. If arguing for such a scope for primary sources, then the Cuban Government allegations are also primary sources.Ultramarine (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, that is not a false, statement. You did remove it. Here is proof of your removal of much of the sourced material, followed by you insertion of the Polity sets, that are off topic, and have been rejected by editors here on talk when you floated the idea. As always you ignored them and put it in anyway, after deleting sourced material:[17]

As you well know I reinserted the material mentioning the US.[18] I made modfications to the proposed Guatemala material after which no objections were raised.Ultramarine (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

About NPOV, that is not the issue here. Your US.Gov. copy and pastes add nothing for the "other side." Saying that the US also making accusations against others for state terrorism is the "other side" of the allegations against the US for state terrorism, as well, is not logical. So that NPOV/Other side clam is nonsense. This is about you posting the other side. This is about your ignoring consensus and lazily coying the entire sections of a website directly into wikipedia, with no attempt to summarize, use any other sources, or even trim to material so that its on topic (as other editors have attempted to do so, only to have you revert them.). Now, I say work on it in a sandbox, with other editors assisting. Once its ready we can restore the valid parts. If you wish to keep making false arguments, you will lose lose the patience of even editors such as myself who still are willing to put in the effort to respond to you. But even my patients has limits. If you keep this up you will prove yourself not serious enough to warrant a reply.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote above you would see that I have already moved the material to a better main article.Ultramarine (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you moved the material anywhere except blanking it. Show a link where you inserted this material to a "better main article." The material was valid for this article, and gives an understanding of the nature of state terrorism, which the US is implicated in, per the sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[19].Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the Gutatmala material you deleted. Your link has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your link has nothing to do with what we are talking about here." Read the section title. Guatemala discussed in another section.Ultramarine (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Your edit added nothing to it. You simply copied and pasted the same material over there, in whole--again (including off topic material):[20]Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss possible problems in that article on the talk page of that article.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that brought this up here, and when I pointed out that what you claimed was false, now you want to talk about it over there. Funny. Btw, I see you simply reverted my improvements and kept it the same: a complete copy and paste from the one website, with no explanation on talk despite you saying, "see talk." I call this dishonest editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to a better article. Discuss possible problems there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for atomic bombings

In order to present a fair background we should also mention the man reason for deciding to bomb. To save both American and Japanese lives. Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.[21][22][23][24][25]

This Falk quote should be moved from the general material to the Japan section. "Turning specifically to past U.S actions, Falk says "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety." Objections with explanation?Ultramarine (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I thought the main reason was scaring the Japanese into surrender ...

I'd rather cut the stuff around "to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War": The scope is wide; we don't need this much background. (Move it to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unless it is already there.) Of course, if we do give background, we should give no POV undue weight, but I'd rather present the directly on-topic facts, and let the interested reader look up detailed background in a more narrowly scoped article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This section is not a pro/con for dropping the bomb. That would be off topic. Its about the subject of state terrorism as it pertains to use of these atomic weapons. Falk quote is fine where it is, and is on topic. Also, the rasoning of using the terror of the bomb to scare other nations for political reasons goes at the heart of why scholars consider it state terrorism (in addition to the fact that civillians were targeted for maximum pyschological impact.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in other places has many statements not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they could be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material.Ultramarine (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The "[reasoning] of using the terror of the bomb to scare other nations for political reasons", if reasoning at all, is precisely "a pro/con for dropping the bomb". So, does it belong or doesn't it? (I say it doesn't.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It only belongs to the extend that it elucidates the thinking behind calling it State Terrorism. Its not valid for inclusion as part of arguments of pro/con for using the bomb. I know there is always some cross over, but that is fine. I just don't want to get this off topic, which introducing pros/cons for dropping the bomb would definitely be off topic here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Soviet Union is on-topic??

Either way, if we present one POV on the reasoning behind the bombings, other POVs must also get their due-weight presentation, or we fail neutrality. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree provided its still on topic. Yes, mention of using the bombs for exterior purposes unrelated to winning the war against Japan, i.e. to effect politically the USSR, is on topic, because it forms the basis of the reasoning that using the bomb was state terrorism. All other POVs related to the topic of State Terrorism, are fine for inclusion, but not other POV that we as editors decide to pick and choose to give "the other side"--when in reality it is not giving the other side to THIS issue, but another. Its like trying to make a square peg fit into a circle. To do so would be OR, and only appears to make it more NPOV. The key is sticking to the topic. Anything that seems to stray off topic has to be tied to it by a source. Saving lives is off topic since it has nothing to do with State terrorism---unless a source actually makes that argument (which is very doubtful since its a logical fallacy: saving lives does not negate it being state terrorism).Giovanni33 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of quotes in this article not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they could be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material. The main reason in mainstream literature for using the bomb is obviously important background.Ultramarine (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We have two motives given for this (alleged) instance of state terrorism: (1) Affecting the USSR; and (2) saving lives. What makes one of them off-topic and the other on-topic? I still say both are off-topic, but on-or-off, we must present both or neither, or we fail WP:NPOV. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "saving lives" is not one of the reasons given or involved in the notion that the bombings constituted acts of state terrorism--and that is why its off topic here. The issues raised that are connected to the subject of state terrorism that involve the bombing are: 1. targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal, i.e. Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. Thus they Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Thus the attacks because they were motivated as a show, a display, a demonstration for political reasons, not military ones--they are argued to be State Terrorism. These are from the sources that make these claims directly tied into the thesis that they were state terror. It does not logically follow to mention alleged motivations to "save lives" in this context. Its not a counter argument, as it does not involve the issue of why or why not it was state terrorism. That is why there is no motivation/no mention of the "saved lives" argument. It would be off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if the attacks was done to achieve military goals against Japan such as quick and less costly surrender, not to be a demonstration of the bomb to the Soviets and world, then this affects claims of state terrorism. Again, no double standard. There are lots of quotes in this article not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they can be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material. The main reason in mainstream literature for using the bomb is obviously important background.Ultramarine (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sourced material/arguments that challenges the fact that the target selection was not against a military target, that civilians were not specifically targeted, and that the dropping of the bombs was not done to create a psychological impact? If you do, then that would be ok with me, even if it does not mention state terrorism, since it deals with the exact argument from the other side of the fence. However, no one one either side of this topic (state terrorism) mentions numbers killed vs. numbers saved. As such its completely off topic. What your proposing is not only off topic but is SYN/OR to the extend that you use it as a counter argument within the context of state terrorism (in the absence of any source linking it to state terrorism).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that the goal was a military one, to achieve the surrender of Japan, not to impress the Soviets. See the main article. I have added much material recently. Or just this quote by Truman in his speech after the bombing: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war."[26] No mention of impressing the world. Regardless, the info numbers killed vs. numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your source only mentions the well known argument that it was to shorten the war, save American lives, etc. Those are parts of the debate surrounding the pros vs cons of dropping the bomb or not. Notice that your source does NOT refute or counter the arguments that the selection of the specific target was motivated NOT by military considerations but political ones, nor that civillians were purposely targeted for this non-military reasons. See:[27] No one refutes that because once these top secret memos came out, no one disputes them. They are undisputed facts. If you do have someone who takes on this claim regarding the selection of targets let me know. They are not opinions, they are facts. They also form the basis for scholars to call it state terrorism. So your sources and arguments remain off topic as they don't touch these issues at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own text states this on Hiroshima: "This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area." So a military target. More importantly, the overall goal was military. To achieve surrender quickly and with little costs. See this on declassified documents for why Truman droppped the bombs.[28]Ultramarine (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, your point does not counter the fact that selection determined and motivated by a non-strictly military target. Again, the fact is (which is not diputable): The Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons to a strictly military target and were motivated by these other non-military factors, which is the basis for the state terrorism charge. No one is saying that it did not have any military considerations. So you are creating a red herring by introducing that. Again, if you have something to counter the facts that are alleged (which of course you don't), or you have a source that argues that despite these facts it was not state terrorism because xyz. No one makes the argument that it was not state terrorism because of the number of lives, etc. Since numbers have nothing to do with its motivations/tactics/methods. Outcome for people killed vs. not killed are a different subject of debate--NOT related to the issue of Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably impossible to hit an exclusively military target of significant size with an atomic bomb. Especially at this time when aiming was so poor that many bombers often managed to miss hitting entire cities. Again, I have given a source for why the bomb was dropped according to declassified documents.[29] It was not to impress the Soviets but to quickly and with little loss end the war.Ultramarine (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculations about what is probably possible, are off topic to the issue. The fact, again, is that the reasoning of the official targeting committee of 1945 is now known for all to see--and they show the reasoning used. Its because these facts are central to the reasons why its considered state terror that make their presentation relevant. Other arguments for dropping the bomb, i.e. to end war quickly, military factors, saved lives, etc. are all off topic to the subject of state terrorism (unless you have a source that ties it to this topic. Otherwise its SYN/OR to pick and choose arguments that YOU think act as counters (esp. since I dont think they do even counter the subject). What you are doing is mixing up two issues. Your points are for another article, not this one. Information for this one must deal with arguments surrounding claims and counter claims of state terrorism (not other reasons to drop or not drop the bomb, which only add extra info that is off topic). For example, say scholars elaborate on why they think that the 9/11 attacks were terrorism, and they do so on the basis that civilians were purposely targeted, and that a purely military target as opposed to a symbolic one was chosen. From this it does not logically follow to say, "but wait, it also was chosen because it contained CIA and other defense connections, financial connections, etc, that had military value in an attack." So what? It doesn't address the claims--it just adds more info, that is not about WHY its still an act of terrorism. Likewise, for someone arguing, but the terrorist attack (hypothetical), saved lives because it scared the country into not going to war. Also, irrelevant, since saving lives has nothing to do with the issue of tactics used (terror)--even if true. This is esp. the case when WE as editors, make up these arguments and pick and choose which one we think acts as a counter, when no source makes these arguments re state terror or not state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The primary goal was a military one: to end the war quickly and few casualties.[30] As Japan was a nondemocracy the primary goal was to impress the leaders. Not the primarily the people who had little influence. I could not see a single mention of civilians in your document. Hiroshima was an important military and industrial center. The destruction of which certainly had a psychological impact on the leaders as intended. If Al Quada had attacked exclusively military targets like military bases it would be more difficult to argue that it was terrorism. Regardless, again, info on numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, even if what you say is true, its not relevant. Saying it has a military purpose as well, does not refute or challenge the facts of the other motivations that are well known, and form the basis for the view that its state terror. Even if the bombings had the result of bringing everyone a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, it would still have been state terrorism for the same undisputed facts, and I quote:

• 7. "Psychological Factors in Target Selection"
• A. "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released."
• B."In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

Since there facts are not disputed at all, your arguments about these factual matters are logical fallacies. What you need to do is find a sourced argument that says why it was not state terrorism, and use their arguments--whatever they are, that make such a case. Otherwise, you are either off topic or engaging in OR/SYN.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of aiming specifically at civilians. Hiroshima also had military personnel. Again, Japan was nondemocracy . Any psychological effect was primarily intended against the leaders. Regardless, again, info on numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections? Ultramarine (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Review the facts:[31]The populous cities themselves were the target, with a factor in the reasoning favoring selection of civilians where were more educated and thus have a greater psychological impact. Again, none of this is in dispute so its pointless for you to argue these facts. Its irrelevant that Hiroshima also has military personnel. Its irrelevant that Japan was not a democracy. Issues of numbers are likewise irrelevant to the question of state terrorism. I'm still waiting for you to produce a single source that ties in your pro-bombing arguments to the issue at hand: state terrorism. You do not get to pick and choose which argument you think apply as a counter, which is exactly what you trying to do here. That is not allowed.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no mention of civilians in the document. For why Truman dropped the bomb: [32] "Issues of numbers are likewise irrelevant to the question of state terrorism." Mentioning numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections?Ultramarine (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea what your talking about when you mention these other sections. Lets stick to one section at a time. Plus, when you start to talk about this, it always turns out your claims have been 100% false. So that tactic doesn't sway much, anymore. The fact is that repeating a claim does not make a valid argument. You can say numbers are relevant all day, but that does not mean they are. You have to have a source that says such a numbers argument is indeed used to counter or talk about the claims of those who argue this is state terrorism (notice they don't mention numbers as that is not relevant). Since I asked many times and you failed to provide such a source, I think we can all assume that you have no source, that this is your own argument, and thus it must be rejected as SYN/OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"it always turns out your claims have been 100% false" Incivility noted. No double standard for the article per above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are factual matter, no incivility. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm stating that you have been 100% false, to the best of my recollection each and every time you have made those claims about other sections (used to justify your pointy but fallacious arguments of two wrongs make a right). Each time I and other editors checked, you have been shown to be wrong. Nothing uncivil about your poor record on this matter. Its also off topic to this section for you to start with this tactic of other sections when you start to lose the argument. The pattern is clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm stating that you have been 100% false" Simply false, incivility, and ad hominem. Please use factual arguments. It is the last resort after having lost the factual argument to use ad hominem.Ultramarine (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you are wrong and have been wrong every time so far is an argument based upon refuting your claims each and every time, that is of proving that your claims about these other sections proved to be completely false, each and every time. Thus, your argument carries little to no weight when you go back to the same song and dance. Its your method and argument I'm attacking--not you. That you cry out that I'm attacking you seems to be indicative of your desperation at having failed to make a case. Facts are stubborn things. Calling them something else does not make them go away: you have a 100% failure rate when it comes to claims that other sections are the same as what you are trying to do with introducing off topic material, such as your "abortion is state terrorism" argument (no source, off topic, and there is no double standard)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any factual arguments? Or only continued ad hominem and insinuations? Please discuss the issue of double standard raised above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All the above is factual, none is ad hominem, nor insinsuation. I'm simply stating a verifiable fact relevant to your line of failed reasoning and argumentation, in addition to your repeated false claims. Time to try something new, I'd say.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not valid argumentation. Again, any factual arguments? Ultramarine (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for yourself since you are the only one doing that. I am making factual arguments, while you are, ironically, making personal attacks (by falsely saying that I am, when I'm not). I take it you have no arguments to make. It appears you do not like to lose gracefully.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who have done ad hominem as per above. I will repeat one of my arguments. Mentioning numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections?Ultramarine (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your the only one engaging in ad-hominens. I don't do logical fallacies, while you often do. To repeat, I have no idea what your talking about when you mention these other sections. Lets stick to one section at a time. If you have problem with other sections, raise them in a new section on talk to discuss them. I see no double standards, and this line of argument of your has always proven to be based on false claims. This is a matter of fact. Again, you can say numbers are relevant all day, but that does not mean they are. You have to have a source that says such a numbers argument is indeed used to counter or talk about the claims of those who argue this is state terrorism (notice they don't mention numbers as that is not relevant). Since I asked many times and you failed to provide such a source, I think we can all assume that you have no source, that this is your own argument, and thus it must be rejected as SYN/OR. But if you have a source that ties your argument to that of a sources argument about state terrorism, I'd welcome it. Until then repetition alone does not make your claims any more valid or true.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"it always turns out your claims have been 100% false." One of you ad hominems from this section. Sorry, but you cannot use one standard in one section and another in the rest of the article.Ultramarine (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So far it always has, so that line of argument has little or not credibility. That is an argument against your method--not you the person. Hence, its not an ad-hominen at all. Its a factual representation of your record relevant to this because you are repeating it again. Also, I always use the same standard. Its you who fails to show an understanding of consistent standards.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing we should removed material not explicitly stating terrorism/state terrorism from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there is a double standard for critical and supporting material. What policy are you citing for using different standards in different sections? Ultramarine (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard. What I described is the consistent standard throughout. Your claims to the contrary have many times been proven to be false. Like I said, so far your record is 100% false, 0% correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. Lets make this specific. Should we remove "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."? Since terrorism or the US is not mentioned in the quote?Ultramarine (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No ad hominem on my part. So drop that. About your question, no, that is not how it works. Each sentence, quotation does not need to have the magic words. Again, its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism. To determine if your quote is off topic, we have to look at it in context. I would expect to see somewhere in the same paragraph the main claim with a source that accuses the US of state terrorism. If you say there isn't, and I check and find it (as I will), this will only add to your 100% false record, so be careful about making false claims again.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[33] I can add some of Rummel argumentation regarding the bombings. So according to your own standard then everything is fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given your track record you will excuse me for wanting you to please quote the relevant verbiage and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet more ad hominem. No double standard for critical and supporting arguments. Are you arguing that all critical material not mentioning "state terror" and that does not follow that an "argument has to be in that context" should be remvoed from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No ad hominem on my part. So drop that (as each time you claim that you are guilty of it). About your question, no, that is not how it works. Each sentence, quotation does not need to have the magic words. Again, its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism. To determine if your quote is off topic, we have to look at it in context. I would expect to see somewhere in the same paragraph the main claim with a source that accuses the US of state terrorism. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits. Lastly, don't put words in my mouth.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism." What policy are you citing? WP:SYN prohibits sringing together sources. One source mentioning state terrorism does not mean that other sources on the same incident are talking about state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not being strung together for the purpose of synthesizing a new claim. That is the crucial difference between the material you object to (which is valid) and the material you want to introduce (that is SYN since there is no source making the claim but yourself).Giovanni33 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example. "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992." If arguing that this is an example of state terrorism, SYN violations. If arguing that it is background material, fine. The same standard applies to mentioning the reasons for the bombings.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quote of one sentence does not prove anything. Context, context, my boy. Look at the paragraph its in. Is it in context providing information rooted in an incident that a reliable source claims is state terror by the US? Yes or no? Answer accurately, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your are violating WP:SYN. I quote from WP:SYN: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly what you're doing when you try to introduce off topic material with a claim that its a counter argument, i.e. saving lives as a counter argument to the claim that the bombing was state terrorism. Or your attempt to introduce abortion as an example of state terrorism. What you are doing is, a classic SYN violation: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together 'serve to advance the editor's position. On the other hand all the other material in here, has valid sources supporting the claim. Addition material is rooted in context and on topic, with no new claims/argument being advanced by us editors.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that the 70,000 deaths material should be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that so the question is not honest. The standard has never been what you pretend it is. Not every quote must mention exactly "state terrorism. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, it is in context, no new argument is made, and the standard is consistent. That you keep hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again--is telling. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not every quote must mention exactly "state terrorism." Then the same applies to the opposing view section.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. As I said, this standard is consistent. The problem with the opposing views section was that we new arguments created without a source that made any such argument addressing claims or counter claims of state terrorism. That is why its off topic, or an exercise of synthesis/OR--since you are picking and choosing other arguments and making them serve the arguments that you think counter the charges of state terrorism. That is where you cross the line and it is in fact off topic. No such similar occurrences in any other section. No double standard.

Certainly a double standard. The quote I gave above does not mention the US or terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is. Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism? Because unless you are claiming that, your point is invalid. If you are claiming that then this will continue your track record of making false claims 100% of the time on this point.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism?" Read WP:SYN. Background material can of course be included. But then the same applies to Opposing vews material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however, in the opposing views section you did not have an argument rooted in the claim of state terrorism or an argument to counter it. You simply pick and choose what argument YOU think would be good as a counter argument for the allegations of State terror, yet, no where in any part of any of the sources, is there any argument addressing state terrorism. In order to have background information, you must have valid foreground information that has a source that ties it to the topic (state terrorism). Because you have none, it fails as background information, fails as being on topic, and fails under SYN/OR rules. For example, Democratic Peace Theory, is not connected by any source to the issue of state terrorism. Its off topic to introduce that theory as if it were an "opposing view" to the allegations of state terrorism. That is OR, to make that connection in the absence of any source.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you are posting identical material in this section and the one below, see my answer there.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views section

Please do not blank entire sections without good reason - that is vandalism. It is not off-topic to discuss opposing views in the slightest. If you gain a consensus to remove a section like that or re-write it, great. But as it is the view previous to your deletion was that it should be there, and thus I believe it should remain until consensus proves otherwise. John Smith's (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor have discussed and concluded that this section is indeed off topic, which is why it was previously removed by another editor. So removing it now is not vandalism at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, see the section "Opposing Views deleted". No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Opposing views section has editors saying its off topic, and the editor posted why he removed it, finally (which was way over do) No one objected to that. No one has shown why this off topic section should stay. It was removed rightfully, and should stay out (unless you can make it on topic).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. There is a double standard. Much US critical material included do not explicitly mention terrorism or state terrorism. So a double standard to exlude supporting material on the same ground.Ultramarine (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. There is no double standard. The standard is consistent, and the only double standard is the one where you are insisting on off topic SYN/OR additions for material that you feel counters the other material (but really doesn't).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing we should delete all quotes not explicitly mentioning terrorism/state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that if there is a single source making an allegation that an incident is state terrorism, then we can cite any other material also critical of the US mentioning that incident?Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source is strong and reliable it may stand on its own, but multiple sources are preferable. Once that is established then within context additional material discussing the same incident within context may be added provided its still on topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Once that is established then within context additional material discussing the same incident within context may be added provided its still on topic." Which policy are you referring to? Violates WP:SYN. Regardless, here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[34] Thus, we have such a source as you claim is sufficient for then adding more material also for the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, its only SYN if we are originating a new claim that is not rooted in a reliable source. In fact that is exactly what you do when you try to add material that is off topic, alleging it is but have no source that connects it to state terrorism, such as your attempts to add abortion as an example of state terrorism against the unborn. That would be OR/SYN, and off topic here. About your Rummel source, that may be fine. Why don't you put it in a sand box and let me go in there and make suggestions. If its on topic, I have no objections. Most of the material in the opposing view section however was way off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"No, its only SYN if we are originating a new claim that is not rooted in a reliable source." Again, what policy are you citing? WP:SYN makes no such statement. However, using your argument, if a single source is sufficient to justify much other material not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism, then Rummel suffice for the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can only include it if its in context and not off topic to the sourced material that does make specific claims. Please quote the relevant verbiage and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object. My understanding is SYN is sound.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Source already given for that his concept of democide is state terrorism. I asked you to state what policies you were citing for your claims. Please state them here.Ultramarine (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant verbiage from source and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object. I doubt your source actually says what you claim its does based on your poor track record. My grasp of policy is good, and I understand SYN. I think you should go back and read it again, if you think what I'm saying is not correct (or ask someone on the talk page about that policy). SYN is a variation of OR: its proven by us editors making up a claim instead of a valid source. Its really that simple.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel explicitly lists democide caused by different nations. I asked you to state what policies you were citing for your claims. Please state them here. Exact quotes please.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a policy page, so no. Take it to that page if you don't understand how SYN works. But you have failed to quote the relevant verbiage from source and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. I would bet that you are doing the same SYN violations again by you being the one who is one picking and choosing what arguments think apply on your own, which would be OR/SYN. Since you have failed to quote from your alleged source, I now really doubt your source actually says what you claim its does.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent)So there is no policy supporting your arguments. There should be no double standard for critical and supporting material. If we exclude supporting material for not explicitly mentioning state terrorism, then the same applies to critical. Please do not repeat your claims that a single source making an allegation is justification for including material not making this allegation. You have failed to present policy stating that this is acceptable.Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, policy is Verification, SYN, OR. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand them. There is no double standard. Never was and that is the whole point: you want a double standard. You want SYN (abortion is terrorism is syn). Claims rooted by reliable sources that say the US engaged in State Terrorism is not. Material that gives additional info in the same context supported by the claim is not making any new claims, its adding background info that is ON TOPIC. This is the standard. You have failed to quote your source that makes ANY claims that is on topic. You have failed to show any claims anywhere in this article that has the same failings. Old tricks are getting tiresome.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Material that gives additional info in the same context supported by the claim is not making any new claims, its adding background info that is ON TOPIC." Which the opposing views material does.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The Opposing Views was off topic as there was no valid source connecting its arguments (i.e. democratic peace theory, other countries are also bad, etc) to the issue of the US state terrorism. That is you picking and choosing which arguments YOU think apply as a valid counter, or to advance your own position. That is a classic SYN violation.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No more off-topic than for example "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Quote does not mention the US or terrorism. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not every quote must mention exactly those words." The same applies to the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. As I said, this standard is consistent. The problem with the opposing views section was that we new arguments created without a source that made any such argument addressing claims or counter claims of state terrorism. That is why its off topic, or an exercise of synthesis/OR--since you are picking and choosing other arguments and making them serve the arguments that you think counter the charges of state terrorism. That is where you cross the line and it is in fact off topic. No such similar occurences in any other section. No double standard.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a double standard. The quote I gave above does not mention the US or terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is. Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism? Because unless you are claiming that, your point is invalid. If you are claiming that then this will continue your track record of making false claims 100% of the time on this point.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism?" Read WP:SYN. Background material can of course be included. But then the same applies to Opposing vews material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however, in the opposing views section you did not have an argument rooted in the claim of state terrorism or an argument to counter it. You simply pick and choose what argument YOU think would be good as a counter argument for the allegations of State terror, yet, no where in any part of any of the sources, is there any argument addressing state terrorism. In order to have background information, you must have valid foreground information that has a source that ties it to the topic (state terrorism). Because you have none, it fails as background information, fails as being on topic, and fails under SYN/OR rules. For example, Democratic Peace Theory, is not connected by any source to the issue of state terrorism. Its off topic to introduce that theory as if it were an "opposing view" to the allegations of state terrorism. That is OR, to make that connection in the absence of any source.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Amnesty quote from above is not connected to state terrorism by the US if not violating WP:SYN. Background, yes. Then the same applies to Opposing views which can be seen as background to the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph in the "Opposing Views" section for which there is this reference...[[35]] ... I fail to see how this article could qualify as an "opposing view." First, any connections/defenses made in the article to U.S. state terrorism, or even gross sponsorship by the U.S. of human rights violators are extremely tenuous. Second, the linked article is essentially a highly abstract critique of past U.S. administration's and certain prominent scholar's tendencies to favour authoritarianism over democracy because of supposed considerations of economic development. It says, rather mildly, without seriously coming to grips with the violence perpetrated, that the previous U.S. assumptions about the value of authoritarianism were wrong-headed. It's authors even vaguely embrace a broad definition of democracy that extends beyond formalized electoral procedures to shared power and meaningful participation. These and similar ideas were extant in the broad populist forces in Latin American countries; their advocates were targeted for annihilation by U.S. sponsored terror regimes, and the U.S. defended and apologized for the state terrorists. It is the contention of so many of the more outspoken critics of U.S. foreign policy that by having such an important hand in suppressing popular movements the U.S. was inhibiting democracy and development simultaneously. So I really wonder why this source should really qualify as an opposing view? BernardL (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing in that qualifies as "opposing views" relating to State Terrorism of the US. That is why to use this material, and esp. the rest of it, for that purpose, without the sources themselves being connected logically even to the subject matter is to try to force a square peg into a round hole: it doesn't fit. To force it to fit by sheer will of the editors own POV (instead of the source) is the classic OR violation.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No more off-topic than for example "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Quote does not mention the US or terrorism. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison between the two cases could hardly be more disingenuous. In one case we have AI analyzing in detail a specific case describing phenomena such as political killings and death threats, which habitually fall under the rubric of analysts of state terrorism. Moreover reliable sources in the field have repeatedly said that reports by the human rights organizations effectively constitute descriptions of state terrorism. (i already quoted one, and see Gus Martin's textbook, Understanding Terrorism for another example) On the other hand, there is your article from ethereal ivory tower liberals that hardly touches upon violent repression at all, let alone examines specific cases, skims over refugee issues, and certainly does not come close to making or defending descriptions of phenomena that are reasonably within the rubric of an article on state terrorism. It is moreover quite noteworthy that you avoided answering my query as to why this article from Halperin et al. should qualify as an "opposing view."BernardL (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that is Amnesty quote is about state terrorism by the US violates WP:SYN. Background material? Possibly, yes. Then the same applies to opposing views material. No double standard for supporting and critical material. Regarding the Halperin article, it provides one explanation for US support of authoritarian regimes who may have committed state terrorism. Rightly or wrongly it was/is a common view that poor nations have difficulty having a functioning democracy and that supporting an authoritarian regime that at least creates economic growth will in the end create a stable democracy. Arguable this is wrong as per Halperin. As another point, I can point to this article which argues that Rummel's concept of democide describes state terrorism.[36]Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing BernardL's point: The AI report is describing particulars of the incidents described by reliable sources as state terrorism. Hence, no original claim is being advanced by us editors. Therefore its not SYN. SYN is when we have a conclusion A and a conclusion B, but we put both together to SYNTHESIZE a new and original conclusion, C. That what what you are doing with the "Opposing views" section. You are picking up arguments that you think constitute "opposing views" but the sources do not themselves make arguments opposing the views you claim they do. They make separate arguments. For you to present them as argument of opposing views is the original claim absent of a source, hence SYN. This section has been opposed as off topic by many editors. You are the only editor that disagrees. I think consensus is pretty clear on this issue, so please stop inserting that material back.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"The AI report is describing particulars of the incidents described by reliable sources as state terrorism." The quote does not mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

opposing views random section break 1

I am going to restore the "opposing views" section because it is important to have balance in the article. A one-sided account of something is not good for the project. To claim it is "off-topic" as the returning anon-IP editor says is ludicrous. I suggest editors try to improve it rather than just censor it completely. John Smith's (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If would be good if you would give a reason for restoring it, such as why you think its not off topic (or if you say its on topic, how its not OR to present it as "opposing views." I see no where in the sources claims of within the context of state terrorism much less "opposing views." The whole section is OR and off topic and this has been obvious to all editors here except Ultramarine and now apparently yourself.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, can someone explain to me how this relates to State Terrorism? It even admits to being off topic (I made bold that sentence):

"Halperin's analysis continues by arguing that research shows poor democracies perform better than poor dictatorships by enjoying better economic growth, with the exception of east Asia.[226] These defenders do not contend that U.S. terrorism advances economic development or democracy in the target countries. In addition, many communist countries opposed by the U.S. have also become democracies, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, and Mongolia. Many U.S.-supported dictatorships have not become democracies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco,..." Again, what does this have to do with State Terrorism, much less "opposing views" on the state terror?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one explained why this part should stay, I plan to trim this part away as off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference to the Niall Ferguson article [[37]] that was left in is certainly as dubious, if not more so, than the rest of it. Ferguson's article is a criticism that is directed at the Nobel acceptance speech of Harold Pinter, who, as far as I aware, is not referenced as a reliable source in this article. The argument "that the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala" is a blatant straw man fallacy since no reliable sources in this article make such a claim.BernardL (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I don't find anything worth keeping in that section; I support its removal. Even if one is of the opinion that we need an "opposing views" section, to keep this does a great disservice to such "opposing views." It also does a disservice to Wikipedida, and an insult to all readers to are presented with such rubbish, masking under "Opposing views." I encourage you to make changes as you see fit and see what you find left that is worth keeping.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Ferguson material on Pinter which has no place here, as I explained above, as well as the material on the Intelligence Oversight Board that is specific to Guatemala, and which appears in a more expanded form in the Guatemala section. What is left is still very dubious. The Halperin article is not really an opposing view and is not significantly concerned with violent repression by U.S. client states. Both viewpoints represented in the paragraph conveniently overlook the class nature of the repression. Latin American states did not become dictatorships because popular movements were incapable of functioning in a democracy because of deprivation of capabilities (poverty, literacy, etc.) so much as they were prevented from using the democratic state to build and transforms institutions that would promote their development because such measures threatened the hegemony of both local and international ruling classes. Democracy and development in Latin America had grown by leaps during the tenure of America's least imperialist president, FDR, under his "good neighbor policy." During FDR's time most Latin American countries were constitutional democracies. There were only a handful of dictatorships. When the United Nations was inaugurated Latin America had the greatest regional representation and progressive Latin American politicians played a pioneering role in the forging of key covenants embracing universalistic democratic values. As historian Greg Grandin explains, things changed for the worse around 1947:

“The years 1947-48 were bad ones for global democracy. . The creation of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Truman Doctrine, Taft-Hartley and the National Security Act, the repudiation of Henry Wallace as the legitimate heir to the New Deal, the institutionalization of apartheid, the partition of colonial India, the ideological hardening of the Soviet Union, the communist coup in Czechoslovakia, and Stalin’s betrayal of the partisans of the Greek Civil War are just a few of the omens that dampened the hopes inspired by the defeat of fascism...Events in Latin America were no less ominous as 1947 marked the beginning of a continent-wide reaction. In Peru and Venezuela military coups overthrew elected governments. In countries that maintained the trappings of democracy there was a sharp veer to the right...The dual promises of democracy and development, which just a few short years earlier seemed to be intimately linked, were now practically incompatible. In order to create a stable investment climate and absent a Latin American Marshall Plan, local governments cracked down on labor unrest and other forms of popular mobilization, which in many countries had been on a sharp rise since the end of World War II. At the same time, closer political and military relations with the United States steadily strengthened the repressive capabilities of Latin American security forces...The importance of the intersection between national and international interests in the containment of Latin American democracy cannot be overestimated. “Despite the setbacks suffered in the late forties, reformers and nationalists worked with some success to reestablish democracies. By 1961, there were again only a handful of Latin American nations that were not, at least nominally democratic. And once again, many of these new governments attempted to enact tax, land, and political reforms to promote political and economic modernization, now backed up, verbally at least, by the Kennedy administration’s Alliance for Progress, which aimed to create a prosperous, stable middle-class inoculated against Castroism. Political scientist Victor Alba viewed the period with such hope that he gushed that Latin American militarism would soon wither away. But it did not. At the same time the United States was promoting modernization, it was also invigorating Latin American militaries and centralized intelligence agencies in an effort to counter real and perceived insurgent threats. Starting in Argentina in 1962, emboldened militaries toppled democratically elected administrations. Guatemala (again) in 1963. Brazil in 1964. Bolivia in 1971. Uruguay and Chile in 1973. When national actors proved insufficient to contain the threat of mass politics, the United States directly intervened, mostly through quiet encouragement and support as in the coups just mentioned, but occasionally with more fanfare, such as when it invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965. Once more the wheel had turned, and by 1976 there were only three nations that could be considered democratic. (Grandin, Greg. The Last Colonial Massacre, University of Chicago Press,2004, 9-10)“ I will stop quoting now; suffice to say that other historical analysts such as J. Patrice McSherry and Thomas Wright corroborate Grandin's perspective.BernardL (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard.

Both viewpoints represented in the paragraph conveniently overlook the class nature of the repression.

I'm not sure what your point is. Whether or not that is correct it doesn't mean the sources cannot be used in the article. On the content you removed, the oversight board's comments on Guatemala is mentioned but in a different way. I can't see a section or paragraph turned over to contrasting views as to how the US was involved. The first reference to cutting aid is when it is being dismissed as continuing through other means.

Rather than keep removing the section, why don't people try to improve it? That was the argument behind every nomination of this page early on. Some people here are putting themselves forward as "unofficial experts", whether or not they say it directly. If they are so knowledgeable then they will know both sides to the story - because there are always two sides. If they profess that they cannot find anything then their knowledge is very one-sided and they should not look down their noses at other commentators.

Even if there is little content just keep it there with an expand tag for the section. John Smith's (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. BernardL, if you have opposing material, add it. Do not delete sourced material you disagree with.Ultramarine (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that for example the Amnesty quote is about state terrorism by the US violates WP:SYN. Background material? Possibly, yes. Then the same applies to opposing views material. No double standard for supporting and critical material. Regarding the Halperin article, it provides one explanation for US support of authoritarian regimes who may have committed state terrorism. Rightly or wrongly it was/is a common view that poor nations have difficulty having a functioning democracy and that supporting an authoritarian regime that at least creates economic growth will in the end create a stable democracy. Arguable this is wrong as per Halperin. As another point, I can point to this article which argues that Rummel's concept of democide describes state terrorism.[38]Ultramarine (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) The Niall Ferguson material is a clearcut case for removal. It is directed at Harold Pinter, who is not being used as a source here, moreover what is supposed to be claimed about Guatemala is a strawman, since no such claim is being made in the article. 2) The Intelligence Oversight material in the "Opposing Views" section is redundant with that which appears in the Guatemala section where 2 of 3 the claims made in the "Opposing Views" section are duplicated in an expanded form. The exception is the claim which is that the U.S. stopped a coup in 1993, which can easily enough be put into the Guatemala section too. Of course, the greatest terrorism was perpetrated in the early eighties when "the Reagan administration comforted the murderers" to use historian Piero Gleijeses's apt description. 3) Background material should be directly related to the topic, ie: the historical situations, the specifics of violent repression by state agencies, etc. There is no necessary or inevitable connection between authoritarianism and state terrorism or even political violence by the state. The article mentions authoritarianism but it does not concern itself in detail with the phenomenon of violent repression, political violence, terrorism, etc. The representation of authoritarianism that it provides in fact mentions benign dictators: "Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development,which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government." [39] That's not the topic of this page. You can easily do better than that.BernardL (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard please. Are you arguing that all the critical material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism should be removed? You ignored my point regarding democide.Ultramarine (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The AI quote is relevant because violence for political reasons supports the claim of terrorism. Thus, "860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature" supports the claim of state terrorism because it goes to the motive for the killings.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That argument violates WP:SYN. No mention of terrorism or state terrorism in quote. Again, no double standard for critical and supporting arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It supports a claim, but doesn't itself make it? That sure sounds like a WP:SYN violation. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the claim is not the best choice of words. What it does is prove its relevant and in context, and on topic, which then can be used for background information from reputable sources. It is not being used to come up with any new claim, but follows logically in context from the discussion of state terrorism. The other material on the other hand is off topic and theres been no valid arguments for why it should be kept. I agree with BernardL.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, if there is a source (Source A) that makes the complete analysis "US did/supported people who did ACTS we define as terrorism" and another source (source B) says of those same ACTS "here is detailed information about those ACTS", source B is perfectly acceptable and not a violation of SYN. The Guatemala section has several Source A and the AI report is Source B. Please put your 'all sources must call it state terrorism' rant to bed. We have been over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that issue. Your claim is invalid. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk

Read WP:SYN. "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The AI quote, for examples, does not mention terrorism or state terrorism. So a SYN violation. Background? Possibly. Then the same applies to supporting material. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, feel free to bring the issue up at WP:SYN, or start a RFC. I am not sure why everyone keeps going in circles over this same argument. If you feel everyone here is violating WP:SYN, yourself being the sole objection, please start a RFC, or ask at WP:SYN with quotes from the books/articles and the conclusion you feel is being reached that is not contained in either source and is instead a merging of the two. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sidhekin seems to agree with me. If you want to start a RfC, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add in response to BernardL, I am worried when we start accepting "it was for a good cause" as a counter to the question of was it terrorism. The answer is not a counter point, its an admission with a reason. We are not satisfying NPOV by adding admissions that simply give a cop out. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International Quote: Question of OR

In order to avoid a double standard, any objections to removing material not mentioning terrorism/state terrorism or the US? Like this AI quote "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Violates WP:SYN to argue that this is state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of tendentious editing. Please refrain in the future. The worst part is, even though no one would state what you wished, that the requirement for a source is that it says the words "state terrorism", you seem to be imposing the rule against yourself and then complaining of its imposition. You can address the issue the person mentions, or you can continue to attempt to get them to pigeon hold their argument into the straw man you keep presenting. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should supporting material be removed on this ground but not US critical? Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone, but yourself, say those were the grounds for which information was selected or rejected. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote from above "In one case we have AI analyzing in detail a specific case describing phenomena such as political killings and death threats, which habitually fall under the rubric of analysts of state terrorism. Moreover reliable sources in the field have repeatedly said that reports by the human rights organizations effectively constitute descriptions of state terrorism. (i already quoted one, and see Gus Martin's textbook, Understanding Terrorism for another example) On the other hand, there is your article from ethereal ivory tower liberals that hardly touches upon violent repression at all, let alone examines specific cases, skims over refugee issues, and certainly does not come close to making or defending descriptions of phenomena that are reasonably within the rubric of an article on state terrorism." None of these texts mention terrorism. But one is included, the US critical one. The one supporting the US is excluded. Cannot have it both ways. Either both texts violate WP:SYN and should be excluded. Or both are allowed as background material.Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still have not seen anyone but yourself state the term "state terrorism" must be in a source to be included or excluded. Your quote above does not include such a statement. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no such requirement, then there should be no problem with the excluded opposing views material. There is no agreed definition on what state terrorism or terrorism is. If we can include US critical material even if it does not mention terrorism, then the same applies to supporting material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And around we go. Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no agreed definition on what terrorism is. Arguing that possible US critical sources are in the context of the article while supporting ones are not is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, just stop. It has been explained over and over and over. The context matters. And no, the context is not whether it supports the US or does not support the US. If you have failed to 'get it' after the probably close to 30 times that it has been explained - perhaps it's time for you to take a wikibreak, come back refreshed and maybe then you will have a new insight into what people have been trying to explain fruitlessly for something close to two months now. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No good explanation has been given. I gave a scholarly study explaining that the concept of democide is identical to state terrorism. The material about democide has been deleted. While a quote by amnesty not mentioning terrorism or even the US is included. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason you keep assuming, or stating "no good reason has been given" is that you are expecting that reason to fall into the logic you keep presenting, which is, "The source must state the words "state terrorism" to be accepted", even though its been pointed out to you that such logic is false. I am not sure where we can go from here, however it is quite disruptive to this page for you to continually insist that such a rule exist, and then to insist that such a non-existent rule is being used against you. I noticed in each of your arguments you continually fall back on stating that a random source does not mention the term "state terrorism," however never address the actual concern brought to you, which is the source context in relation to the article. For instance I explained to you that stating Hiroshima was a necessary evil as you presented it, was not actually an opposing view to if it was terrorism. I went one step further and presented a source which tackled just this issue and quoted it for you. The discussion however broke down into you asking "Does a source specifically need to mention "state terrorism"" of which I then explained that context and Wikipedia policy are the main determining factors. At no point did you ever counter the point presented to you, which was that a necessary act of terrorism is still terrorism, so presenting a source saying it was necessary terrorism still did not satisfy the requirement of it not being an opposing view. I then added an opposing view that took the question of state terrorism and addressed it directly, not by saying it was necessary, but by stating it was not state terrorism. I ask that you please read over what your fellow editors are saying in relation to the sources being presented and directly address their concerns, not by asking a question repeatedly, in which you have been given the answer repeatedly, but by examining their statement and countering it directly if you feel it is incorrect. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not discussing the atomic bombings section here. No one has explained why the democide material should be excluded. Especially after I presented the a source stating that this is identical to state terrorism. While including for example an AI quote not mentioning either the US or terrorism. If you have an explanation, then please provide it.Ultramarine (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation is: Your measurement of inclusion and exclusion, based on the presence of the word "state terrorism" is entirely incorrect as has been repeatedly explained to you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I stated in the paragraph above. Do you have any concrete objection to restoring the democide material? Ultramarine (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to follow up with this, even though I was not the one who told you it was not acceptable. Rummel does not make the argument that his statistics was democide as I was under the impression you were stating, instead the argument is made by Kisangani N. F. Emizet who states Rummel specifically classifies such killings of government against civilians as Democide, however Emizet believes it should be called terrorism, this includes mass murder, politicide and genocide. Now correct me if I am wrong, you wish to state Rummels statistics, according to Emizet, show economy is the greatest factor in state terrorism? Also if you can point me to the paragraph that was removed so I can compare it to the provided PDF by Emizet. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of this paper is to explain this tragedy or the state as a terrorist. Rummel (1994: 36) calls it democide" The Political Economy of State Terror by Emizet Kisangani & E. Wayne Nafziger. We should include Rummel's estimates. Showing that the US, like other democracies, have little democide. If we can include an Amnesty quote not mentioning the US or terrorism, then we can include democide research.Ultramarine (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the paper I have the following questions: Is this a peer reviewed or published paper? In which book/paper does Rummels statistics appear? What is the exact paragraph or information you would like to include, and in which section would you like to include it? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the US critical arguments are certainly not from peer-reviewed or academic sources. No double standard. Regarding R. J. Rummel's works, see the article. The deleted material from the opposing views section was fine: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[40][41][42]"Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. E. Wayne Nafziger, through data compiled by R. J. Rummel's study on democide, found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer of their own civilians than dictatorships. Nafzinger equates democide as state terrorism." I think this would be acceptable, however you can not cite Rummel since its not his argument, you have to cite Nafzinger. To add I wouldn't put it on the same line as Chomsky as it is not addressing him directly, instead in its own paragraph following the Chomsky remark. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Emizet Kisangani & E. Wayne Nafziger do not make this claim. Rummel do. But again, if we can include an AI quote not mentioning the US or terrorism, then we can include democide research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Do you have a different paper? The one you included was not by Rummel. I can look over it shortly. The one you presented does not say that Rummel thought terrorism was equal to democide, Emizet says it. --N4GMiraflores 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who argued that the sources do not have to mention state terrorism explicitly. Are you changing your position?Ultramarine (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummels specifically argues that it was democide, excluding terrorism, that incidents of the state acting against the civilian population is democide, hence its off topic in an article on terrorism since his entire paper is countering the idea that it is terrorism, instead stating its "democide." In the paper you presented Emizet states that Rummels definition and classification of democide is in fact terrorism. The point that democide and terrorism are one and the same, is Emizets. Emizet then argues that state terrorism against its own civilian population, often does not take place within democratic states. One can argue this is off topic since this article is not discussing state terrorism taking place within a single country, but instead state terrorism being inflicted on outside countries by the US. In an attempt to assist you I placed this on the back burner, however if you want to nit pick, the information is still off topic, especially since Chomsky is not talking about the state acting against its own civilian population which is what Rummel and Emizet are discussing. --N4GMiraflores 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel does not make an exception for terrorism. Nor is it limited to only its own population. For example, Rummel consider the atomic bombings to be democide by the US. Again, no double standard. Rummel does not explicitly mention "state terrorism", but neither do for example the AI quote.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummels entire point is that it is democide. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote from Rummel. --N4GMiraflores 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from Amnesty showing that it is discussing state terrorism and violations for which the US are responsible.Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this discussion is over, it was going so well. Again however, if you wish to use the above as I laid it out, feel free, you just can't quote Rummel if you are not discussing Rummel, and you are instead discussing Emizet's use of Rummel. --N4GMiraflores 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing for a double standard. Rummel, a source supporting the US, must mention state terrorism. The AI quote, used to criticze the US, does not have to mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel states that any death by the government without an appropriate trial, is democide. He classifies the following as Democide: massacre, genocide, mass murder, terrorism, extra-judicial executions, assassinations, politicide, and atrocities. Which means any item or statistic cannot be linked specifically or solely to terrorism. --N4GMiraflores 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source please for this definitoon of democide. Others have argued that his definiton is equivalent to state terrorism as noted above. The AI quote have no mention of terrorism. Are you arguing that it should be removed? If not, why, if avoiding a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(out)"A study into Democide by R. J. Rummel has concluded that democracies, have committed fewer democides than totalitarian governments."[43][44][45]" This would also work with the sources presented, however I would argue the above item I previous wrote is much better. --N4GMiraflores 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)N4GMiraflores first proposal above would address the reason that I removed the item from the article as 'off-topic' (the second would need to clarify that the person doing the analysis is counting democide as terrorism)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "Sister Dianna Ortiz"

This is looking good. Brief and to the point, while providing detail by way of the main article. Good work, all!

The only problem I see is the last sentence: "US involvement in her torture has been alleged". I'm tempted to tag it {{citation needed}} or {{who}}. On the other hand, I already know of a source, and I once suggested:

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

It just seems too clumsy and round-about way to express it now. Oh, and I still don't have the source, which per Giovanni33 is the article "Murder as Policy" by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995. So I'd rather not cite it myself.

The ties to the US are important to this article, of course, so we need a sentence like this. Just less weaselly, please ... suggestions, anyone? — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Allan Nairn

According to this interview,[46] Sister Ortiz suspects that "Alejandro" was a US government official. Also, possibly she was mistaken for someone else. I suggest we cite this source instead. Maybe "Sister Ortiz suspects some involvement by US government personnel." I will add more to the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)