Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Ultramarine's removal of sourced material, and reversion

I object. He says he removed this to the talk page for discussion: [1] Untrue. It has already been in the talk page for over a week and has been discussed. Its funny that he feels it needs to be removed, despite it being worked on by at least three other editors---when at the same time--he added several sections copied and pasted in whole from a web site, without any discussion on this talk page before he did so. Then, after editors agreed it should be summarized instead, he ignores this until editors fix it. Now he restores it back to its bloated state.
Since Ultramarine feels new sections should be removed to talk, why does he not feel those sections need to also be out of the article, in talk instead? No, he restores it to its previous bloated state, undoing the progress that was made to keep it on topic. I call this POV pushing. I also notice he adds a new section about democracy ratings (polity sets) under the misleading edit summary "as discussed on talk" suggesting there was agreement to add it when the opposite is true.[2] Yes, it was discussed and rejected by every editor.
So we have removing relevant sourced material without discussion, which was added through the consensus process, and adding in sections that were rejected, I have to ask: does consensus mean nothing to you? As I said, I object to these reversions, and ask that the proper material be restored, and that you remove these off topic material sections until there is at least some consensus for your significant changes.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I made changes due to some objections to the new Guatemala structure and material. No one has objected since. I may have removed to much of the material you added, which was not undisputed, so I restored the material mentioning the US.[3] I still think that there is too much material saying essentially the same thing in the Guatemala section. Should be summarized. Ultramarine (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some objections?" That is vague and unexplained. And, the changes you made was to blank most of the material, while you copied and pasted entire sections from the .gov website, as if wikipedia were its mirror--despite several editors objecting to this. Why the double standard? The Guatamala information is useful, valid, and has been discussed on talk. This is more than you can say for your copy/past sections which have never been placed on talk. Again, double standards.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Double standard and US state department discussed in other sections.Ultramarine (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

School of Americas section

Separate section have been suggested before. I think this is a good suggestion which will make the very long Guatemala section more manageable.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A new background section and a separation from Guatemala should be good. If you are interested in handling this without cutting content, I would be more than happy to check out a sandbox and propose changes. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Ultramarine/sandbox8.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more information should be added, its definitely a step in the right direction. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a main article for more details.Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is too short, there is not enough detail. If you simply refuse to add any further substance to what you have, then I have to disagree with any changes to the existing section as it would be removing much needed content. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is more general material about SOA in this article. Anything I missed? Nothing removed from what I can see. Two persons are mentioned as having taken courses at the SOA but that info is probably better kept as now in the specific nation sections.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, if it is going to be split into a new section, it should be more "fleshed out" containing a background section which covers issues such as when it was founded, where its located, its original purpose, its renaming and why, etc. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add your suggestions to the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"by critics"?

What precisely is going on with this move? Stone at least had the decency to explain his ... should we wait for an explanation from DHeyward (talk · contribs), or should we just move back? — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it's not the first time DHeyward has moved this article. Meh. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "by critics" part should be removed, but most of the discussion I see supports the "Allegations of" form. I admit I haven't been following along here at all, and only briefly looked through the history after seeing the post on ANI. Was a consensus formed about removing "Allegations of" in the first place? --Onorem ♠Dil 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec ... with a move!)

I didn't know this had come up at ANI; I'll check that now. Thanks.

As for consensus: There was no consensus before the move from "Allegations ... by ..." to "... and ...", but I think there has been one, if hesitating, since then. Certainly all "parties" (if that's the word) worked on expanding the scope of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now back at State terrorism and the United States. The title DHeyward chose lacks any basis in consensus, and embodies a POV which discounts the possibility that a critical friend would call the US on this, so it was clearly not appropriate. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations" was removed without consensus. I restored it. "allegations" should be in the title. --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors have accepted the change, after the fact, and there was discussion about it before then. Its at least stable, and long term editors here have shown they can live with it, with the understanding that the material where the US accuses others of State Terrorism, will eventually be moved off to its own article. Allegations is a bit of a weasel word esp. since the article deals with a lot of undisputed facts of US state terrorism, not just allegations of facts. Lastly, I will point out that there is much more credibility left for DHeyward in this article given his past disruption, including vandalism (I did not forget your repeated blanking of whole sections, such as the Japan section, against consensus). And this goes for your other user name Tbeatty before you changed it to DHewyard, which showed your very long block log for edit warring. That you come back here and your first act it so move the title without discussion here first, is troubling and in line with this past disruptive behavior.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff please for claim "there was discussion about it before then". Agree that allegations should be in the title. "with the understanding that the material where the US accuses others of State Terrorism, will eventually be moved off to its own article." That is false.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Find it yourself. Few are interested to waste their time arguing with you since that gets no where, and you never respect consensus anyway. So what is the point? When you decide to start respecting consensus and drop your disingenuous arguments, then you will be taken more seriously, meriting an answer.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, it's not helpful when you say things like that. Other users may be interested in seeing the discussion too. If you know where it is then point it out, please. If you refuse to then Ultramarine can argue that there was no consensus in the first place, whether or not that is actually true. John Smith's (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are conflating two different things: Discussion, which can be found right above here (seriously, couldn't you find that yourselves?), and consensus, which no one claims was there before the move: Even Ultra only asks for a diff for "there was discussion about it before then". And no, I'm not volunteering to dig back through the revisions to see where that section was first added. A hint for anyone who wants to satisfy Ultra: It was posted at 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (six days before the move). Just go revision digging, anyone who cares. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, there was a discussion but no agreement. The moving editor refereed to WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sid, Heyward said the move was made without consensus. Giovanni then replied by saying that there was a discussion and then complains that Ultramarine doesn't respect consensus. So you'll have to forgive me if I thought he was implying there was consensus. If he admits there was no consensus then it's difficult to know how the page can progess. If an editor can change the article title without consensus, how can others be asked not to change content without consensus? John Smith's (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni's answer began: "Editors have accepted the change, after the fact". How you get from that to implication of consensus before the move, I cannot quite fathom. But okay, you're forgiven. :)

Re change with/without consensus: Good question. I think an answer not involving double standards must involve more subtle standards, such as WP:BRD. But I haven't yet seen an answer spelled out, so take my musings with appropriate amounts of salt. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that more US critical material has been added to the Nicaragua section today without prior discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice some major hypocrisy in User:DHeyward page moves [4]. He complains, rightly, that "alledged" is a weasel word in most of the other articles he moved, but is happy to have "alleged" in this article. Trav (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations and "alledged" are different words with different meanings both literally and implied. I'd be happy with the title "Questions of state Terrorism by critics of the United States" if you would like to remove the word "allegations." --DHeyward (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not find the above suggested name change acceptable. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Until I see a worthy reason for a name change, especially one involving the words "by critics", expect me also to find it unacceptable. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the current title, except possibly the scope as its currently understood needs to be refined in practice. When and if the material of US allegations against other countries gets too big, it should spin off into its own article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged is an acceptable word according to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Title would be better with this in it.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about a compromise of "Allegations of State Terrorism and the United States" restores "allegations" and remove "critics"? --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Give us a worthy reason. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that 'allegations' is a necessary qualifier to have an NPOV title or NPOV focus for the article. And I doubt that most people doing a [search] for this topic would start their search with "allegations" - so the addition of the word to the title is in fact un-helpful.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to have bothered you: It was a worthy reason for such a move I found lacking. :) For the future, I'll try to voice my requests more specifically. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing and historical

Thoughts on organizing the material into an historical and ongoing sections? The Philippines and Iran seem to be the only current allegations. The other material seem related to the Cold War.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would break the sections down too much. The only sorting I would believe is necessary, is alphabetical. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would adding some form of dates after the country names be something that would be an easy visual cue without adding too much more clutter?

Cuba: 1960's-present

Nicaragua: 1970's-1980's

etc.

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like it. Though I think I prefer parentheses to colon: Cuba (1960s-present), Nicaragua (1970s-1980s), etc. For one thing, it seems to be more common (see the section headings of Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance). But it also feels more right; as if the colon means something else (though I cannot quite catch what). — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If parens are the more common usage, (and we have no strong objections) go for it! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is particularly common, and statistics seem hard to find. It is just my impression that parens are more common. Most of the parens seem to be in artist bios (in addition to Bach, there's Kim Wilde, The Bangles, and I could have sworn I saw it on some painter bios, but I can't find it now), but there's also the random historical article (Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan, though that mixes several styles, and some renaissance stuff, though again, I cannot find it now).

Two other forms used (but seemingly even more rarely) are non-punctuation constructs, often with "of", "in", or "during" (Cuba of the 1960s to present; Nicaragua during the 1970s and 1980s; I don't think either is a good option here); and constructions wherein the time specification goes before a colon (definitely not a good option here). — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan

I removed a paragraph in the Japan section that did not address the topic. It was removed as first OR, since it was making an argument against state terrorism that was not made in the book itself, the book was not addressing state terrorism. The second portion of it being removed was as off topic. A valid argument that an event was not state terrorism, is one that tackles or approaches the subject in some manner, however what was placed was instead a look at the event on a separate level, one where it was trying to discern if the bombing was justified or not. A justified act however does not exclude it from being state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle for Wikipedia's soul: your comments are needed

Please take the time to comment at:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence

The "deletionist guardians" the same editors who contribute nothing too this article except AfDs and deletions, have requested an Arbcom. Ice Cold Beer, one of the editors who deletes sections he personally disagrees with here, has blatantly lied about personal attacks against another editor, user JzG (Guy) has repeated these lies. There is abundant wikilawyering with dubious evidence.

One of the Arbitors in this case is a close friend of one of the "deletionist guardians", and refuses to recuse himself.

Why does this matter? Because the very same intolerant editors who are viciously suppressing any alternative theory of 9/11 are also attempting to delete this page.

I suspect even more off-wiki communication is going on between the "deletionist guardians". These "deletionist guardians" are better organized and have the support of the wikipedia mainstream more than we do.

That is why it is vital to take just a minute to comment on this arbcom.

This arbcom is another WP:BADSITES fight, which will have immeasurably negative repercussions across wikipedia. If Alternative views of 9/11 can be viciously silenced and supressed, this article is next, guaranteed.

The Economist Article called this fight on wikipedia "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". This is truly what this arbcom is, the battle for Wikipedia's soul. Is Wikipedia going to be accepting of many view points, or only an official American one? You decide.

Trav (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit off topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Am I the only one who thinks the use of quotations is starting to pile up, and if we cut down on them, we could also reduce much of the size of the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of material that could be moved to background articles.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are wary of being accused of SYN and so are putting everything in direct quotes.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of criticisms of Chomsky

See [5]. The reason given is false. The source states this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That has been previously discussed at length already. Its not a reliable source, and attacks Chomsky, instead of of his specific claims. So its off topic here. Maybe it can go on the Chomsky page if it were a reliable source, which it isn't. So I support its being kept out.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticizes Chomsky's claims, not him as a person. Any concrete reason for exclusion?Ultramarine (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Its a personal attack on Chomsky, which under BLP, must be removed. It attacks him of inventing the things and of deception, etc. Also, as I said this is not a reliable source, as explained by other editors. All these are concrete objections. Get some consensus before restoring, in the very least. Its been talked about by many editors so consensus was pretty clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticizing his writings and sources is not a personal attack. Source is respected journal and historian.Ultramarine (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting Chomsky's criticisms in this context. There's a difference between criticizing and deleting. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)rafaelsfingers

To clarify, I agree we should not delete valid criticism of Chomsky about US policy where he names it state terrorism, etc. However, this is an attack on Chomsky himself, instead of his claims, and from not a very reliable source. I think there is some confusion, about that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a rant about the author's view of Chomsky's politics--it offers no discussion or analysis of any sort that back up the soundbite being offered as "criticism." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Chomsky's prominence as a figure in the 'US commits state terrorism' discussions, I would think that there would be some type of 'criticism' from a more reliable source than that particular Wittschuttle tirade. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong regarding the historian Windschuttle writing in a respected magazine? Ultramarine (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-format?

See [6]. Source can be easily provided. But what is wrong with the format? Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The format reads as if it were someone's quickly sketched notes from reading the book. Perhaps placing it in a table or some other cleaner way to display. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in a table format. If no more concrete suggestions are made I will restore the material.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This material takes up a lot of space and it is presently far from evident why it should be considered for the article. The line introducing it is extremely dubious: "Guatemala was theoretically democratic for much of this period." I wonder what point is being made here? Who besides Ultramarine is deciding that the definitive way of characterizing this data is to say that the country was democratic for "much" of the time? The data itself is apallingly underwhelming. Ostensibly, by the standards of some undefined "theoretical" democracy, Guatemala was only positively democratic in 6 of the 12 periods. (The average per period is actually -.8) And why are the periods out of the chronological range of the main periods of state repression in Guatemala supposed to be relevant? BernardL (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can remove this particular sentence.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without some kind of intro, you are left with a list of seemingly random date ranges, some ratings from -10 to 10 on a fairly esoteric scale (in comparison to something widely known like a table comparing to equivilant wattage of incandescent lightbulbs) and a few random sentance fragments. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can expand a little more on the polity scale if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bernie. As I pointed out that this has been discussed recently, and the consensus was that it was not needed/useful for background info. It gives undue weight to this particular model of what is a "democracy," and its a bit off topic, and of questionable value to this article. Its fine for the article on the subject, but here its just adds very little useful information to the topic, and takes up space that could be used for something more on topic. What are you going to add this for all countries to show how, according to this model and method, how democratic each state was? Why? That is not the topic here, and its opens up a can of worms regarding democratic theory and methods for measuring it (as I said to present just this is problematic due to undue weight. But more to the point its off topic. Lets keep this out.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No such consensus. Material used in numerous peer-reviewed studies. Are you arguing that all the US critical material not mentioning terrorism or only the Guatemalan government should be removed? If we have background material, then all sides should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BernardL and Giovanni. I had discussed the information with Ultra before and thought it could be useful to add if its context was given. The data is suppose to show that democracy was more prevalent during US back governments. If the author of the data, or someone examining the data makes this claim it would make more sense. However I think it may still be off topic unless the author went on to state that forms of state terrorism are less likely to occur in a democratic environment/government. However, the same author would need to make all of these arguments to make it not a violation of SYN. Ultra throughout the discussion however was combative and in the face of hostility I walked away from the discussion, something Ultra seems to have taken a as victory, or a declaration that the content was ok. I am not sure if you can be combative with people and assume their removal from the process has created a consensus. --N4G Miraflores 12:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again a double standard. Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism. Should this material be removed? Ultramarine (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a double standard? --N4G Miraflores 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a double standard, its an assessment of a particular within the larger context. You are comparing apples and oranges, and using an invented and unspoken singular standard as if everything fits nicely into it, not to mention that WP is not and does not need to be consistent in this manner. Deal with arguments on a case by case bases in their own concrete terms as it relates to their value or lackthereof to the article. If there is some other section that you feel needs to go, then make the case there, in that section and abide by consensus on the matter. This double standard argument of yours is fallacious.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"“The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." Does not mention the US or terrorism. Background? Possibly. Then we can also include an overview of the degree of democracy.Ultramarine (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its where you are writing, but I have no clue what you are talking about anymore. Are we still playing the "says terrorism/doesn't say" game in which you have been told repeatedly that such a standard only exists within the confines of your own made up straw man argument that no one has been baited into? I think as a group we should ignore this argument from now on, its obviously not a serious one as its been answered by possibly everyone who posts on this page. --N4G Miraflores 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Source you quote from above Ultramarine, is called El Salvador's Decade of Terror, clearly attributes the great majority of that "terror" to the Salvador regime, and discusses significant U.S. complicity in a chapter called "The U.S. role." It is clearly topical, relevant, and reliable. The paragraph you quoted conveys alot and is useful background for orienting the reader to the conflict. Your example, by contrast is extremely poor on all counts.BernardL (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of the general level of democracy is at least as useful. The Polity data is used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, so reliable. Your quote does not mention the US or terrorism, the topic of this article. So cannot be more on topic than my material.Ultramarine (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Democracy is an issue, can you please elaborate on its relevance? --N4G Miraflores 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument of it stating the words "state terrorism" has already been defeated, if you have further objections to content, please either present a new argument, or refrain from repeating the same argument that everyone has already tried to explain to you is false. --N4G Miraflores 12:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not been "defeated". Just noting that there should be no double standard, so please do not claim that this material should be excluded for not mentioning state terrorism. Regarding your first point, I can equally well ask why peasant poverty is an issue?Ultramarine (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have further objections to content, please either present a new argument, or refrain from repeating the same argument that everyone has already tried to explain to you is false. --N4G Miraflores 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown that double standard is acceptable. Why is peasant poverty but not democracy acceptable to discuss as background?Ultramarine (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard, and one would not be acceptable if it existed. Perhaps you can tell us why its relevant. --N4G Miraflores 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have no reason for including the peasant poverty statement, then there is no justification for keeping it. Degree of democracy is obviously relevant. For example, according to Policy scores there was a higher degree of democracy in the 70s than before the 1954 coup.Ultramarine (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You examined the Polity data and came to that conclusion on your own, or you have a source for us to read? --N4G Miraflores 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what the Polity data says.Ultramarine (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Title?

When was the title changed from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to State terrorism and the United States? Just comparing this article to similar articles this doesn't seem to be right at all, taking a look at the "see also" section links you to:

Whats more it seems to subtly diminish the acts of terror committed by the U.S. by trying to make it into a more general discussion of state terror. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple months ago, and seems to be stable. There is a lot of discussion about this in the talk and archives. Personally I think allegations is not needed at all. I think it should be removed from those other articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed without agreement. Certainly not stable since there was a minor revert war regarding the title recently. Agree we should include allegations again.Ultramarine (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was basic acceptance and willingness to settle with it afterwards. Attempts at other variations proved unacceptable to most.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

False.Ultramarine (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

True!Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, considering the "revert war" was between a person I have not seen edit here and an admin stating they were wrong for moving the article. I agree with Giovanni, it seems to be stable, and it has been growing as such. --N4G Miraflores 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Very false. The only reason it wasn't put back is that you can't move an article to an existing name. Jtrainor (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuba, Origins, Operation MONGOOSE, and the Missile Crisis

It has always been surprising to me that the Cuba section lacks mention of Operation MONGOOSE, an operation, which, according to my experience, has been referred to as U.S. terrorism against Cuba more frequently than any other case. The main sources are historian Jane Franklin from her "Cuba and the United States: A Chronological History", Noam Chomsky from "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, historians Jorge Dominguez and Stephen Rabe from the peer-reviewed journals "Diplomatic History” and “Presidential Studies Quarterly”, and James G. Blight and Peter Kornbluh’s “Politics of Illusion: The Bay of Pigs Invasion Reexamined.” I propose inserting this material at the beginning of the Cuba section, and moving the material on Operation NORTHWOODS to follow immediately on its heels, as Operation NORTHWOODS is commonly referred to as a side-note of the overall MONGOOSE campaigns. I do have more information to provide on the topic of Operations NORTHWOODS, but one thing at a time. BernardL (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A most excellent addition, something that was much needed, and certainly missing from the section on Cuba. Well done, and thank you. And Prof. Dominquez, and Prof. Rab, are impeccable sources, experts in the field. I made some minor changes, mostly just linking, and font size for the sections. One change I'm not sure about was changing Mongoose from all Caps. My reading on the Operation usually is not in all caps. I'm not sure, though, if all caps is proper and correct, here. If so, I'll be happy to self revert that change.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"within the works Chomsky has written on this topic"

I don't see this qualifier, nor anything to that effect, in the source.

Quite the opposite: Windschuttle says this in reference to how Chomsky has defended "the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists". Hardly on the topic of state terrorism committed by the United States.

I propose we remove the entire Windschuttle passage as quite off-topic. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The whole article is about Chomsky's hypocrisy regarding terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, and its a logical fallacy. Saying Chomsky supports other regimes has nothing to do with his claims about US government actions. Attacking Chomsky for alleged hypocrisy belongs on the Chomsky article, not here--unless the arguments are addressin the merits or lack thereof of his claims regarding US sponsored terror (and these do not).Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It casts doubts on Chomsky's methodology and thus should be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even say Chomky is wrong. Its a clear logical fallacy, attacking Chomsky, instead of his argument. Completely off topic and not worth including here.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article cites false accusations Chomsky have made against the US, like the Sudan bombings. I can cite such examples from the article if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

False according to whom? You seem to determine this question based on your own personal beliefs instead of valid sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions? (Preferably in a new section.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One example "Chomsky has persisted with this pattern of behavior right to this day. In his response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists’ actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot."Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is the argument that Chomsky statement is false? It seems true to me. All I see you doing is attacking Chomsky but its more of a personal attack than an argument that shows he is making false statements. Also, what is your source?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Windschuttle article.[7] If you read the article you can see that after this passage he start with the false accusation regarding the Sudan Bombings.Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is just a low level attack piece, even the title says so, "on his hypocrisy." So far you have failed to support your claim; please quote from the source (I don't know how good this source is, but it doesn't look good), where it shows one of Chomsky's claims on this article as being demonstrably false. If so, we may be able to use it. But I don't see that. Attacking the man is not the same as attacking the merits of his arguments. The former is an ad-hominen fallacy. Also, Chomsky credibility as a scholar is well established and his is not an easily impeachable source, so good luck.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No more low level than Chomsky's accusations. Chomsky is a linguist, not a political scientist. The article attacks Chomsky's claims regarding American terrorism, like the one that the US is a leading terrorist state.Ultramarine (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the works of Windshuttle, Chomsky's works in political analysis are seriously discussed all over the world, are featured in university curriculums all over the world. He was even invited by the philosophy department at West Point to speak on the subject of "Just War theory." There is no question that his place in global political discourse is well established, even if many disagree with him. He is a polymath, and like other world class polymaths (ie: Bertrand Russell) his value as an intellectual commentator cannot be restricted to his specialist discipline. Even some of the greatest philosophers who disagreed with him, such as Hilary Putnam, have testified to his vast knowledge and intellectual prowess.BernardL (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus on Chomksy's qualifications to speak on this matter, so I'm not going to debate this point. What I'm asking for, and which you apparently are unable to deliver, is very simple. Support your claim that Chomsky is being cited here making a false claim. I'm still waiting. When you have one, then you have a point. Otherwise, its just hot air, Chomsky bashing, because of disagreements over his analysis. But the funny thing is that they can't counter his arguments because they are apparently quite solid, so they attack him instead. That is a fallacy and evidence of how weak his opponents are on the substantive issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding Chomsky's qualification. Even in linguistics there are scholars accusing him of scholarly misconduct. The article includes Chomsky's statement regarding the US being a leading terrorist state; the Windschuttle article criticizes that.Ultramarine (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking about consensus among editors here, which you seem to ignore anyway. And, again, I don't see anything against Chomsky's arguments, only attacks against Chomsky himself. Big difference. Otherwise, what is the counter argument presented that the US is not a leading terrorist state? How is Chomsky's argument refuted?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the article which is about this. Already mentioned criticisms of Chomsky's claims regarding the Sudan bombings as one example.Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You presented nothing that contradicted Chomsky's claims or showed him to be in any way inaccurate. If you have something, lets see it. I see nothing in that vein.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, one example, Chomsky's claims regarding the Sudan bombings was false.Ultramarine (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Contradiction is not refutation. Also, is this claim in this article?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is Human Rights Watch stating the Chomsky invented a false statement regarding the bombing from them: [8]Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, exactly what 'qualifications' mark a 'political scientist' that Chomsky doesn't have? It's not as if you are talking about someone who is practicing medicine or law engineering a building without a license. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No academic degree or education in political science. True, it is possible to be a a good amateur historian or chemist without a formal education. But this lack lessens the authority.Ultramarine (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Windschuttle's "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented" appeared to be specifically applicable to Chomsky's view of the Sudan bombing as state terrorism by the US; as such it seemed within the scope of the article. The rest of the Windschuttle article has other concerns about previous Chomsky works which included other incidents Chomsky ties to US state terrorism - which lead me to drafting the statement as I did. I am not convinced the Windschuttle is WP:RS, nor am I tied to any particular wording or inclusion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to check again. The full sentence is: "Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented." It's referring to his "defense" of other regimes. I cannot with my best will read this "defense" as referring to the Sudan bombings. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My recollection was wrong. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change to this section as the new Windschuttle quote seemed even further off topic. Nowhere in the Chomsky quotes is he mentioning 9/11 or Pol Pot and so criticising his stance on those topics is irrelevant to this article. Is there something else that can be used?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this have been better posted at #Possible_replacement_for_the_Windschuttle_passage ?? And, you know, some time within 40 hours of me posting that, rather than after waiting until I acted on it?? And is it really worse to be off-topic than to be dishonest? "within the works Chomsky has written on this topic" still is not substantiated in the source.

Oh well. Personally, I would say it's on-topic to Chomsky's "leading terrorist state", but if you have better suggestions, I'm all ears.

Alternatively, could we just get rid of that "leading terrorist state"? Leaving it in, without also presenting other views, would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The current version is dishonest. Getting rid of it all would solve both problems. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that there were other threads going on this topic. Sorry. While the specific W quote is referring to Chomsky's defense of certain regimes, it does still seem to be an accurate summary of W's criticisms of Chomsky (less W's "Chomsky's wrong cause other folks done worse stuff" line of argument). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic has resurfaced. Please continue this in a section where it can be easily followed by other editors in the "Chomsky" section below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky (more)

See [9]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. Please refrain from reposting questions that have already been answered. --N4G Miraflores 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not given any concrete objection. If you have none, then sourced material will be restored. Do you have any? Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use your browsers search function, discussion is located on the page. --N4G Miraflores 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Chomsky being a hypocrite because 'someone else is worse than the US' has not one iota of relation to whether the US sponsored terroristic acts. Plain and simple and stated before. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This topic has resurfaced. Please continue this in a section where it can be easily followed by other editors in the "Chomsky" section below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Guatemala and Opposing views, again

Ultra, why did you put this material back in the article? It has been discussed and the consensus was that it was not needed/useful for background info. It gives undue weight to this particular model of what is a "democracy," and its a bit off topic. Its fine for the article on the subject, but here its just adds very little useful information to the topic. So, I'll remove it, in keeping with consenus on that subject.

Lots of discussions above. If you have anything to add, do it there.Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was already removed by another editor. I saw you had added it again the other day but did not have time to get to it until now. But as this has already been removed by someone else, quite correctly, its a moot point.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you deleted one quote about the Guatamala report. Why is that? The quote was quite direct on topic. I noticed that after you removed that quote you gave a long quote instead about something that was off topic: the issue of the rebels internal struggles about using the legal arena, etc. I will restore that quote and trim that off topic material.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unclear what you refer to but probably the Truth Commission. Unsourced material replaced with sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you used the same source, but simply quoted a different part of it. The part you removed was much more on topic. I kept both.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You do have a source. However, your source is a dubious second-hand.[10] I quoted the report itself and it does not make these statements.[11]Ultramarine (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is not dubious at all: "Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This is a good enough source.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These statements regarding the US are not in the actual report: [12]Ultramarine (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet it does. Here is another source that supports the same claim:[13] "It was therefore an act of high courage and patriotism for the Guatemalan members of the Commission for Historical Clarification to write a report that not only finds the Guatemalan military responsible for mass murder and genocide but does not shrink from pointing out that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some state operations."

Just point out where this statement is in the report. I gave a link above.Ultramarine (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your link is only a summary. You need to look at the original complete version: [14]Giovanni33 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this statement exactly? It is not in the conclusion.[15]Ultramarine (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to go digging for it. Apparently the full report is 9 volumes.[16] Since we have reliable third party quotes from it, I'd say that is good. I have not found the full version online, just the summary, which has conclusions and recommendations. The full 9 volumes is what you want to find the exact quote.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing entire books without giving page numbers is not allowed. If this was important it would have been in the long conclusion. Your sources are dubious second-hand accounts from online web publications.Ultramarine (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why I did not cite the entire book, I cited reliable third party sources who cite the book. That is what we should be doing. As far your belief only the "important" parts are in the summary, that is not relevant. The third party sources are reliable and we have more than one. Your arguments against inclusion are dubious.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(out)The primary source would be best, but if there are multiple reliable sources confirming content of the original source, then we can probably use them until someone can better identify the original source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This link [[17]] to PBS on-line provides an independent corroboration of Robert Parry's claim. For an expert analysis of the report see this [[18]] by historian Greg Grandin, who worked on the Truth Commission in 1997-98. He presents a different picture than Ultramarine's selection about the rebels noting that:"the CEH presented the CIA's 1954 intervention as a national "trauma" that had a "collective political effect" on a generation of young, reform-minded Guatemalans. "So drastic was the closing of channels of participation and so extensive was the recourse to violence" by those opposed to democracy, Memoria del silencio argued, that it is "considered one of causes of the guerilla insurgency" that roiled Guatemala for nearly four decades." The article is worth reading in its entirety. Towards the end Grandin describes the events surrounding the initial release of the report in Guatemala: "The CEH presented its findings in Guatemala's National Theater in early 1999 to a front row of military and government officials and an overflowing crowd made up of victims, their relatives, and members of human rights and Mayan organizations, many of whom were survivors of political movements decimated by state repression. Chief Commissioner Christian Tomuschat summarized the CEH's conclusions. While he condemned violations committed by the Left and criticized Cuba for supporting the rebels, his remarks, backed up by overwhelming statistical evidence, left little doubt as to responsibility: "the magnitude and irrational inhumanity of the violence ... cannot be understood as a consequence of a confrontation between two armed parties" but rather of the "structure and nature" of Guatemalan society; the U.S. government and U.S. corporations acted to "maintain Guatemala's archaic and unjust socio-economic system"; the army carried out a "blind anticommunist crusade, without regard to a single juridical principle or the most basic ethical or religious values, resulting in a loss of all human morality."75 The audience greeted the speech with tears and deafening applause."BernardL (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the actual conclusions of the report,[19] the US is only briefly mentioned and given no more place than Cuba.Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual conclusions of the report found: "In the case of Guatemala, military assistance was directed towards reinforcing the national intelligence apparatus and for training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." They found the Cuban influence toward militarism was based on the repressive state. --N4G Miraflores 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"The CEH concludes that political, logistic, instructional and training support provided by Cuba for the Guatemalan insurgents during this period, was another important external factor that marked the evolution of the armed confrontation. In the context of an increasingly repressive State, sectors of the left, specifically those of Marxist ideology, adopted the Cuban perspective of armed struggle as the only way to ensure the rights of the people and to take power." They also criticizie the rebels for ignoring democratic options and repressing moderates as noted in the article. Marxist ideology partially to blame.Ultramarine (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic SYN violation. Notice that you are making the connections to effect your argument that "Marxism is partially to blame,' (really blaming the victim). The sources already state that their conclusion as to who is to blame, who are the victims, and who are the oppressors. There was no democratic options--that is what they were fighting for.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument is humorous you have to admit. The Cubans are to blame since they helped arm the people who were being oppressed by the state which was killing civilians thanks to the training of the US. --N4G Miraflores 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Cuba giving support to oppressed peoples does not negate the illegitimacy of state sponsored terrorism and the importance of bringing out the truth. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)rafaelsfingers

"sectors of the left, specifically those of Marxist ideology, adopted the Cuban perspective of armed struggle as the only way to ensure the rights of the people and to take power."""During its investigation, the CEH has confirmed that the political work of the guerrilla organisations within the different sectors of society was increasingly directed towards strengthening their military capacity, to the detriment of the type of political activity characteristic of democratic sectors. Likewise, attempts by other political forces to take advantage of the limited opportunities for legal participation, were radically dismissed by some sectors of the insurgency as “reformist” or “dissident”, whilst people who sought to remain distant from the confrontation were treated with profound mistrust and even as potential enemies. These attitudes contributed to political intolerance and polarisation."So yes, Marxist ideology advocating an armed revolution instead of the limited democratic options is partially to blame.Ultramarine (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blame for what? It does not say they were to blame for the Human Rights violations, it does however state: training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." It does not say the Cuban role had a significant, or any bearing at all on human rights violations. --N4G Miraflores 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"The guerrilla organisations committed violent and extremely cruel acts, which terrorised people and had significant consequences. Arbitrary executions, especially those committed before relatives and neighbours, accentuated the already prevalent climate of fear, arbitrariness and defencelessness."Marxist ideology contributed. It brands as heresy "reformism" or "revisionism". That is, trying to work for reform democratically instead of a violent proletarian revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The source does not say Cuba is too blame is what you are telling me, correct? --N4G Miraflores 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion centered around how dominant the US role was. As noted earlier, the conclusion mention this only briefly and gives equal weight to Cuba/Marxist ideology.Ultramarine (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala and Cuba (more)

See [20]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to state terrorism? It seems what you are presenting does not argue for or against anything, nor is Cuba accused of contributing to the acts. --N4G Miraflores 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been answered as well, please use your browsers search function to find the current discussion and continue it, do not make duplicate sections. --N4G Miraflores 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already present on the page, please continue that one as to not confuse veteran and new readers alike with duplicate sections. --N4G Miraflores 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to mentioning Cuban support of the rebels. Diff or just name the section is claiming this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to current discussion so it does not confuse new readers. Please continue above, or below. --N4G Miraflores 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the issue has resurfaced it is better to dicuss in a more recent section. Please continue in the section Guatemala and Cuba below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from splitting discussions, if the issues above have not been addressed, then we are simply making the same arguments in multiple places. --N4G Miraflores 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Better to keep the discussion in the more recent section where it can easily followed by all editors.Ultramarine (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But I can certainly respond in any place. Please respond to my last argument in either place.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The very very dead horse of 'double standard'

Quit beating the horse ~~Jagz~~ Ultramarine. You have been told over and over why your 'double standard' is an invalid stance. If you are pretending you havent been told or if you truly dont understand it, you should not be editing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz? Wrong article. No good explanation has been given for the existing double standard excluding material supporting the US. For example, 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. Material noting that the degree of democracy improved to better than before the coup in Guatemala has been removed. While material not mentioning the US but being only describing human rights violations in general in Guatemala is included. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The linked that Ultramarine gave as a reference went to this...http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/data/ ...the home page of the Polity Data sets...no evidence is given that a reliable source actually supports the interpretations that Ultramarine himself provided. Any data set can be selectively interpreted in a number of ways, it's not up to Ultramarine or any other editor to provide such an interpretation.BernardL (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The polity data is used in hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I just cited the data. Please explain the general double standard in the article and examples I noted above.Ultramarine (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source relating this view of Guatemala's democratic path to the situational context of the Guatemala war and state repression? If it is so widely cited, then you should be able to come up with one- no? BernardL (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the US critical sources do no mention terrorism or the US. It violates WP:SYN to argue that they do. Background? Possibly. Then we can also include a discussion on the degree of democracy.

Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203. One study noting that the Polity data is one of the most widely used democracy measure in political science research.Ultramarine (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other problems. Disputed article tags were removed without explanation. Regarding the atomic bombings this was restored. "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." As I noted when this was removed: No opposing views are included. This is discussed in the main article where there are opposing views. Again this double standard were only US critical arguments are allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that justifications for Arroyo's regime in the Philippines and for El Salvador were allowed. The U.S. critical sources are directly related to the situations at hand. If you find a RS source interpreting the polity data in relation to the violence in Guatemala, we are fine. I do not think that is such an awful or difficult compromise for you.BernardL (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The US critical sources in many cases do no mention terrorism and sometimes only an US ally, not the US. This violates WP:SYN. Double standard to exclude supporting sources on the same grounds. What is your position? Sources must accuse the US of terrorism? Then we must exclude much of the US critical material. Or is it that background material is OK? Why is then material regarding democide or degree of democracy excluded?Ultramarine (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: "Patrice McSherry argues that after a successful (U.S. backed) coup against president Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes in 1963, U.S. advisors began to work with Colonel Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio to defeat the guerrillas, borrowing “extensively from current counterinsurgency strategies and technology being employed in Vietnam.” Between the years of 1966-68 alone some 8,000 peasants were murdered by the U.S. trained forces of Colonel Arana Osorio.^[1]" "William Blum writes that Arana Osorio earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels. [21]2

1. Does not mention terrorism or state terrorism. This is not a general US or Guatemala critical article but one for US and state terrorism. 2. First sources does not mention anything bad. Violates WP:SYN to string together different sources to imply that the US is responsible for the deaths of these 15,000 peasants.Ultramarine (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now this is getting silly. Both McSherry and Blum forthrightly advance the thesis the U.S. is significantly complicit in state terrorism, and are known in the literature for doing so. You seem to be expecting editors to only grab snippets where the U.S. and state terrorism are mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph, which is ridiculous. As just one example...McSherry has written in "Shadows of State Terrorism: Impunity in Latin American'..." ON THE CUSP OF THE 21st CENTURY, THE LONG SHADOWS OF STATE TERRORISM still haunt Latin America. The memory of predator states that turned on their own citizens is still present for millions of people in the region; and for some, as in Colombia today, political violence and state terrorism are still a reality. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in the dirty wars of the Cold War era -- 200,000 in Guatemala alone -- and tens of thousands more suffered barbaric tortures, disappearance, and other forms of state terror. Yet most of the architects and agents of these crimes walk free today; many remain in positions of power... As E.V. Walter (1969: 9) once argued, states that employ terror "consciously design a pattern of violence to produce the social behavior they demand" -- and their power resides not only in their capacity to alter present behaviors, but also to prevent future behaviors. The Latin American militaries -- trained, financed, and usually supported politically by the United States -- used counterinsurgency strategies deliberately calculated both to eliminate "subversives" and to "change the mentality" of all citizens. Today the legacy of fear remains a deterrent to full political participation and a sense of citizenship in many Latin American countries." (Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999). Sources like that are obvious includes, it should not be expected that everything insightful they may say about the topic has to have the magic words. About Blum, here is a link to what he says about Guatemala [22], it should leave no doubts. I'm not sure what you mean when you write that "First sources does not mention anything bad." - It seems to say that Osorio was the military commander of U.S. trained forces that murdered 8,000 forces in 3 years. That's not bad? BernardL (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You avoided my question regarding whether the sources must mention state terrorism and the United States or not. Please answer. McSherry and Blum may accuse the US of state terrorism. Fine. For example Amnesty and Human Rights Watch do not. Why can we cite Amnesty regarding peasant poverty but not Polity research regarding degree of democracy? Why does the article mention that the atomic bombings are seen by critics as militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers, but does not mention any opposing views? Why is academic material regarding democide, argued by a scholar to be equivalent to state terrorism, deleted, while at the same time an unsourced allegation that the US was involved in the worst massacre in modern history in Latin America is included?Ultramarine (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

These questions have already been answered many times. If it does not mention state terrorism then it must be in the context of state terrorism. It must be deemed sufficiently related to the topic, it must be from reliable sources, it must provide further information directly explaining the view of those who regard US actions as state terror, etc. The additions you question, have all past these criteria per the consensus of editors here, such as the Human Rights watch and AI bits. The difference is that many of the additions you are claiming "double standard" have not passed these tests, i.e. they are not sufficiently on topic, they are not what you claim them to be, i.e. "opossing view," and thus really a SYN violation. They are not logically connected to the subject, and form non-sequiturs. They do not add value but merely bloat the article on off topic tangents. Or they are undue weight and barely related, such as your Polity Sets, which also give undue weight to one particular view of a model of democracy. As a consensus of editors determined, it does not belong in this article. The fact that you disagree does not make anything a double standard. That is a failed and false argument. The standard is the same, and only is "double" to you.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this "double standards" canard is a dead horse, and much too much time has been wasted (see the archives) over this singular argument by Ultramarine, which has been refuted time and again. I won't dignify it by repeating the arguments. But I will say that his edit warring over deleting long term material that was added with consensus is disruptive, and not acceptable. Ultra seems to be deleting good material just because his new off topic material has not won any acceptance. So, in essence, he is violating WP:POINT--disrupting WP to make a point (his point being an alleged "double standard"). If this continues, I will take it to ANI. I strongly suggest you not delete long time material that was added with consensus unless that consensus changes first. The same goes with adding new material whose relevance has been strongly disputed by a majority of editors here.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not possible to repeat the arguments since the questions have never been answered. If you have answers now, please state them.Ultramarine (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Been answered many times. The answer is that its not a double standard, its an assessment of a particular within the larger context. You are comparing apples and oranges, and using an invented and unspoken singular standard as if everything fits nicely into it, not to mention that WP is not and does not need to be consistent in this manner. What is needed is to deal with arguments for inclusion exclusion on a case by case bases in their own concrete terms as it relates to their value or lackthereof to the article. If there is some other section that you feel needs to go, then make the case there, in that section and abide by consensus on the matter. This double standard argument of yours is fallacious. The fact is that material you are removing is deemed by consensus to be very relevant, to the heart of the issues, in understanding the nature of State Terrorism, and have been accepted as impeccable sourced material directly on target. A consensus of editors has also deemed that much of the material you have been advocating for adding (democratic peace theory, polity sets, Chomsky attacks, etc) are barely relevant, and mostly off topic, or are SYN, and undue weight, or are not from RS's. These particulars have been explained. Your turning this around and taking out other material that does not suffer from these failings under the guise of "no double standard" is a false argument in both content and method.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my specific questions regarding issues above. No, they have not been answered.Ultramarine (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will get to your other queries tomorrow. I really need some sleep. I have just discovered that the claim for the phrase "writes that Arana Osorio earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels" is actually University of Michigan Sociologist Jeffrey M. Paige. Social Theory and Peasant Revolution in Vietnam and Guatemala in the peer reviewed journal,Theory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Nov., 1983), pp. 699-737. I will be re-inserting the material with the new adjustments.BernardL (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BernardL for finding that source and making the adjustments. Get some good sleep!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the fundamental questions have been answered.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

False. Been answered many times by many editors, too many times already.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

False. For example, why is there no opposing views in the atomic bombings section which states "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." I removed this since this issude is covered with opposing views in the main article. No justification for restoring this without opposing views have been given.Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not false, and I doubt your memory is that bad. Its been addressed before, and explained well already. The issue might be covered in the main article, as it should be, but that does not preclude it being mentioned briefly here. The reason why it should be mentioned is because this is part of the arguments of the "revisionist" school that characterize the bombs as state terror, i.e. not used for military purposes, but terrorism, and as such transgressed moral barriers. I suggest you go back to the section (probably in the archives now) where you argued this same old argument, and consensus was that this was valid.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an older discussion on other material. I removed this material in the past few days. No talk page discussion on that. Diff if arguing otherwise. NPOV requires the inclusion of arguments of both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, an anonymous IP editor reverted the Palparan material. Does anyone have an explanation for why taking a course in the US means US state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will from now on collect the problems with this article here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. Please give an explanation for problems described.Ultramarine (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala democracy

See [23][24] Sourced material should be restored in order to avoid a double standard. Here is a graphical illustration.[25] Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Still off topic, what is the connection with the topic? Wording is better, however it still lacks something anchoring it to the discussion. --N4G Miraflores 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No more off topic than the current statement in the article "According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."" No double standard. What happened with democracy after the CIA sponsored coup is relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection to the topic? --N4G Miraflores 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered that. Are you arguing that we should remove statments like the one I quoted? Ultramarine (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not, you actually asked a question in response to mine. If you cannot state why its on topic, then you already know why its not included. If you feel like dropping the combative attitude and simply making your case, then feel free, else your failure to answer why its related or on topic is your own answer for why its not included. --N4G Miraflores 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

False. "What happened with democracy after the CIA sponsored coup is relevant." Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?

Why is it relevant, what is democracy and terrorism's connection? Also the data is in regards to Polity, I am not sure where you are getting anything about the CIA as your information does not seem to discuss them. --N4G Miraflores 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to argue that the coup is responsible for killings if democracy had returned to a similar levels before the worst violations. Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty that do not discuss terrorism or the US?Ultramarine (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for democracy's impact in relation to the CIA coup in the section? --N4G Miraflores 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Polity source notes the coup in the graph. Do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote is related to US state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot source to a chart, you know that. Charts require interpretation which we are not permitted to do. Further you should know the rules regarding primary sources. --N4G Miraflores 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Claimed policy regarding charts please. Do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?Ultramarine (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on primary sources, and WP:OR. --N4G Miraflores 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR does not state that charts are primary sources. Again, do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty? If not, then there is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me as I have withdrawn from discussions with you based on what I have interpreted as your hostile tone and threats: [26] --N4G Miraflores 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not been able to show any policy violation regarding primary sources, that it settled. Regarding on the issue of on topic, do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?Ultramarine (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Palparan

See [27] Taking a course in the US is not US terrorism. Objections to removal with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the specifics, however two points. First, if he is a former student of SOA, then the summary provided by Ultramarine is misleading to simply say "he took a course." If he is not a SOA student however and it simply says John took a course, then it should be fleshed out further explaining his particular connection. --N4G Miraflores 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not a former SOA student. Exactly why is taking a course in the US terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me? When you post under someone, indented under their post, its seen as a reply. --N4G Miraflores 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no justification for why this is state terrorism by the US, then we can remove it. Agreed? Ultramarine (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no ones lord, nor am I the one who included it. I do not speak for the masses, and considering you opened this discussion less than 24 hours ago, it seems you should wait for more voices. --N4G Miraflores 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V "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." I will however wait a short time.Ultramarine (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are quoting, however the information is sourced, its relevance seems to be what you are questioning, so your above is "false" as you like to start your paragraphs. --N4G Miraflores 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoted WP:V as stated. If you do not have a justification for why this is US state terrorism, then no reason for including it.Ultramarine (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wherever, policy is policy. Again, its sourced and verifiable, your issue is its off topic, which WP:V does not cover. --N4G Miraflores 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is off topic. If you have no justification for it being on topic, then it should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not your lord, I can only offer you guidance, consensus is an important thing. Waiting for one to develop, is useful, and further, asking the person who added the material can be the greatest benefit you receive. Not waiting for a consensus on a topic such as this will often see you met with a revert. --N4G Miraflores 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of argument for inclusion have been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unexceptional sources

See [28]. These unreliable sources should be removed. Objections to removal with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the email, however Asia Times and The Inquirer meet WP:RS. --N4G Miraflores 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced op eds are not reliable. Newspapers do not check them like they do their own writings.Ultramarine (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced, you have the link, its from Asia Times. As for if a newspaper checks Op-Ed's it does in fact do. --N4G Miraflores 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We can include, of course with proper attribution that they are opinion articles. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not self attributed as an Op-Ed. --N4G Miraflores 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can mark it with whatever the newspapers/online publications calls it. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and Asia Times does not list it as an op-ed as far as I have seen, please feel free to direct me to where it does if I am incorrect. --N4G Miraflores 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The inquirer calls it " Inquirer Opinion / Columns" The AT can be attributed to Journalist Cher S Jimenez. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It appears its an opinion and a column, interesting. So its not just an op-ed I guess, weird situation. I guess we can state that John Doe writing for The Inquirer and Jane Doe writing for Asia Times have stated in articles and opinions / columns ... --N4G Miraflores 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we state John Doe when we have persons named? Does not explain the other unreliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both John Doe and Jane Doe are fillers, my apologies for confusing you. --N4G Miraflores 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seem we have settled some of the problems. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

E. San Juan, Jr.

See [29]. Should be shortened. Objections with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with numerous citations to a good piece, however I agree the section could be shortened, perhaps by switching the quotes to notes, and summarizing the information. This however should not be done without everyone agreeing on the final section. --N4G Miraflores 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately those critical of the US do not wait for everyone agreeing. See also WP:BOLD. Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only ask you not purposely make a disruptive edit to make a point. --N4G Miraflores 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not do that, only edit to improve the article according to policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to know you will wait for a consensus to develop. --N4G Miraflores 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately those critical of the US do not wait for everyone agreeing. See also WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

Use your best judgment, I will use mine as well. --N4G Miraflores 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the talk page and article. I will certainly use my best judgment when summarizing. But again those US critical do not wait for everyone to agree.Ultramarine (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait for a consensus to develop, and if reverted, do not become defensive. --N4G Miraflores 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately other editors do not do that.Ultramarine (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its good you would not do something simply because others are not, that would be pointy --N4G Miraflores 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly follow policy and assure that WP articles also follow policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Red army fraction

See [30]. Terrorist group supported by a state. Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, you may want to add more than a sentence. Why did they do it, who says they did it, are they comprised of members of a particular group? What are some of the attacks? This would not be an "opposing view" but an example of US being attacked. --N4G Miraflores 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to expand with more material, feel free to do so.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include it, simply flesh it out, do not submit single sentences, its "lazy" for a lack of better words. The stronger you make something, the less likely it is to be challenged. --N4G Miraflores 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot demand that others should write for you, that's "lazy" for lack of better words. Do the proposed text violate any Wikipedia policy?

WP:REDFLAG, a single source for a statement that Germany committed terrorism against the US is not appropriate. --N4G Miraflores 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No policy against single sources. Quote policy if claiming that.Ultramarine (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims require exception sources. Allegations of terrorism is an exceptional claim." --N4G Miraflores 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were different claims then different sources may be required. This one claim, not several claims.Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted you, so either meet the requirements and expand the section, or I have to say I do not agree with its addition, unless you were misstating policy on your sandbox page. --N4G Miraflores 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a statement from WP policy. Could just as well say "an exceptional claim require an exceptional source". There is no requirement for two sources. Or are you arguing that this applies to all statements in this article? Ultramarine (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting you, so either you misstated policy on your talk page, as that quote is directly from it, or I am correct and I await a more fleshed out section as it seems to be a great start. --N4G Miraflores 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the current statement violates any WP policy? Are you really arguing that two sources applies to all statements in this article? Again, if you want to expand with more material, then feel free to do so. That however is not a reason for exclusion unless you cite a policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Passive aggressive = lose. Please let me know when you have fleshed out the section, a sentence is not an appropriate section. --N4G Miraflores 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Your incivility has been noted. Do not repeat. Again, if you have any policy you claim the statement is violating, then please state it.Ultramarine (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know when you have fleshed out the section, a sentence is not an appropriate section. Please report my "incivility" I would like an admin to inspect this section and make a judgment. --N4G Miraflores 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will report you if you continue. Why need the section be fleshed out, which policy is violated? If you just want a general expansion, sorry, but you have to do your own writing.Ultramarine (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Report me for? Asking you to flesh out a section and not simply add a section without consensus to an article as a lone sentence? Do it. --N4G Miraflores 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will report you if you continue to be incivil and make personal remarks. I you want to flesh out the section due to something that is not a policy violation feel free to do so. Those reader interested in RAF can easily click on the wikilink and read the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below in "Opposing views", your constant threats and tone have forced me to withdraw from participating in discussions with you until I see a change in such behavior. I will continue however to work with the other users who edit this article and hopefully my comments in regard to these below sections have been of some assistance to you. --N4G Miraflores 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no policy reason for excluding this material, then that is settled. Will wait some time before adding back this material to see if someone else have a concrete objection.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me, as noted above, due to what I interpret as hostile behavior and your constant threats, I have withdrawn from this discussion and future ones from you. [31] --N4G Miraflores 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to continue a factual discussion, then that is unfortunate. If no else have a concrete objectin, then the material will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And it will be reverted because the objections are valid and repeatedly provided to you. Not continuing the discussion and beating a dead horse over and over does not mean you should edit war and restore this against consensus.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing the discussion. Do you have any factual arguments regarding this issue? Otherwise the material will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views

See [32] I have added sources and rewritten the text. Any remaining objections with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, the entire middle paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. This article is not about democracy, do you at least have a source stating that democratic nations do not commit terrorism, or something similar to draw a connection? If not it is clearly off topic. --N4G Miraflores 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the US critical sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. No double standard. Furthermore, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can repeat if you did not get the question. What is the connection to the article? --N4G Miraflores 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection to the article? If you can not even answer this section, then you are already saying it should not be included, or just being difficult and refusing for some reason. --N4G Miraflores 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Chomsky and explanation for US support for these dictatorships, for example. You have not answered my question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the connection is, the paragraph is discussing democracy, did Chomsky equate terrorism to democracy? --N4G Miraflores 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, also discusses for example democide, how many victims, and US support for dictatorships. Please answer my question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still not seeing a connection to the topic. What does democide have to do with democracy, just explain yourself fully, instead of repeating the same boring argument that I will just continue to ignore since its been answered. Yes, I know, you feel it has not, I feel it has, so I will continue to ignore it, you will continue to spam it, hoping someone bites. --N4G Miraflores 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already stated that I have given a source stating that democide is equivalent with state terrorism. Research on democide shows that the US is one of the more important contributors to democide=state errorism. No, you have not answered the question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with democracy? --N4G Miraflores 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That the US is not a major contributor to democide=state terrorism does not directly have anything to do with democracy. You have not answered the question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then my answer to you, since I refuse to play the game of answering the question over and over, is that the entire middle paragraph is off topic, or giving the benefit of the doubt, poorly written and does not explain its relevance. I recommend you rewrite it so it better shows why its on topic. --N4G Miraflores 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it off topic when I have given a source showing that democide=state terrorism? Please answer. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to tell me the connection. Democide = State terrorism ... ok. And? What is the connection to democracy? For instance you state "Halperin et al writes that there is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop" What is the connection back to the topic? How is the an opposing view to what is presented? --N4G Miraflores 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, that the US is not a major contributor to democide=state terrorism does not directly have anything to do with democracy. Regarding the Halperin study, gives general background for why US have supported dictatorships. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources and background material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this right, I do not want to misquote: You are arguing that Halperin says the US supported dictatorships since the countries were too poor at the time to be democracies. Halperin is then linked to the professor, I forgot his name, that argues that democracies commit less democide, this is supported by Polity. Finally this is linked back to the topic by stating that Elizmet states democide is state terrorism? Please rewrite any parts of this that I have wrong. --N4G Miraflores 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What I stated can be read in the Sandbox. Halperin is not making an argument regarding democide.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it is still opposed as off topic, and your failure to provide an adequate explanation. I am only one voice however, perhaps a consensus in your favor will develop. Unfortunately, my attempts to assist you have been met with threats, so I will have to discontinue our discussions as they are and hope they were of assistance. Please note an end to the discussion due to your passive aggressive behavior and threats are not to be taken as signs of approval, or me not approving. --N4G Miraflores 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Halperin is related to the topic due to another reason than the one regarding democide. As noted above. Are you arguing that we should remove the many US critical sources and background material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Your continued incivility has been noted. It is unfortunate that you do wish to continue a factual discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me as I have withdrawn from discussing this and future issues with you due to your constant threats and what I interpret as hostile behavior. [33] Continued replies could be interpreted as bating. If you would like to discuss this issue, or apologize, please do so on my talk page. Thank you. --N4G Miraflores 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be very happy to continue a factual discussion without incivility or other WP policy violations. Please continue the discussion. Otherwise see my earlier comments above.Ultramarine (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan 2

See [34]. One alternative is that add the missing opposing views. Alternatively we can remove this sentence, since this issue is covered with a NPOV in the main article, "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." Objections with explanation for not adding opposing views or removing this sentence?Ultramarine (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence should be removed, since we are not discussing morals, or counter arguments based on morals should be permitted, I prefer the first since moral basis is off topic. --N4G Miraflores 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If these are part of the views of those who hold the atomic bombings to be state terrorism (and they are) then their inclusion is valid, in my view. Of course these views also are part of those who argue against the bombings on other grounds and do not make this argument, but it certainly is part of the argument for why they are thought to be state terrorism. So I say keep.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of both sides. Why should only arguments from one side be presented?Ultramarine (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Title 2

See [35]. Current title directly contradicts WP policy. Should be changed accordingly. Objection with explanation?Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is not titled "United States terrorism". --N4G Miraflores 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Same objection applies. Inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that these actions are considered state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

False, your argument is only legit if the articles was titled United States terrorism, per the examples provided of "Islamic terrorism" and "Israeli terrorism" --N4G Miraflores 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just examples of not allowed article names. The current title also implies that these actions are considered state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. --N4G Miraflores 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ultramarine (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article not titled "United States terrorism." --N4G Miraflores 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Same argument applies. Also, I note that you reverted changes to article that had been added today without talk page discussion. So you do not follow your own requirement that everyone should agree on the talk page before making changes.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See above for discussions on the content. As for the title, you are again incorrect and have not refuted the point posed. Please do not take it defensively, WP:BOLD specifically warns of not establishing a consensus on articles such as these. --N4G Miraflores 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You above stated that that everyone should agree on the talk page before making changes. Now you do not follow this. Regarding the title, exactly the same argumentation applies.Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did state that, do not act against it, then attempt to force your version by telling other to abide by it. As for title, asked and answered. --N4G Miraflores 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So why did you restored material that not everyone had agreed to one talk? Regarding the title, why do a different interpretation apply? In both cases the title inherently implies that the allegations are correct.Ultramarine (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern, please use my talk page, the above comment seems unrelated to the title of the article. As for the comment regarding the title, this has been asked and answered. --N4G Miraflores 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We are dicussing the content of this article so it should be discussed here. Again, hy did you restored material that not everyone had agreed to one talk? Regarding the title, of you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title? Ultramarine (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material since everyone did not agree to it on talk. As for the title you are incorrect, as noted above, the article is not: United States terrorism. --N4G Miraflores 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It had been removed today with no one agreeing on talk to these changes. Regarding the title, same argument applies regardless. Again, please answer, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is not titled "United States terrorism" hence your argument is false. Asking the same question over and over and over will not net you a different result. --N4G Miraflores 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor change does not change the basic argument. If arguing otherwise, explain. Again, please answer, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, the article is not titled according to statement. The article is not: United States terrorism. --N4G Miraflores 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only two articles with identical titles. These were examples, obviously meant to apply to similar names.Ultramarine (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article title is not "United States terrorism". --N4G Miraflores 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You avoided my point. There are only two articles with identical titles. These were examples, obviously meant to apply to similar names. Also, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not argue anything. I am stating the title of this article is not: "United States terrorism" therefore you are incorrect in your application. --N4G Miraflores 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"United States terrorism" is not mentioned as an example either. Obviously the two mentioned examples are meant to apply to similar names in general. Not only your variant.Ultramarine (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess my participation in this particular section is done as it seems we are at an impasse. --N4G Miraflores 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

True. Views by others? Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with N4GMiraflores. There is nothing wrong with the title according to policy. The title is clearly different than what you are saying it is. The difference is a very important one. Your point seems to be a waste of time because its not a valid point.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly why this title does not inherently implies that these actions are considered state terrorism? Also, if you are arguing that the current title does not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala and Cuba

See [36]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to state terrorism? It seems what you are presenting does not argue for or against anything, nor is Cuba accused of contributing to the acts. --N4G Miraflores 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been answered as well, please use your browsers search function to find the current discussion and continue it, do not make duplicate sections. --N4G Miraflores 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already present on the page, please continue that one as to not confuse veteran and new readers alike with duplicate sections. --N4G Miraflores 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to this material. Diff or just name the section is claiming this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to current discussion so it does not confuse new readers. Please continue above, or below. --N4G Miraflores 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved content to current discussion location: [37] --N4G Miraflores 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never blank my talk page comments. No one had objected to mentioning Cuban support of the insurgents in the section above. Ultramarine (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is deleting, please refrain from violating WP:AGF again. And since you refuse to acknowledge the previous discussion, I will simply say "Asked and answered" to th eproblem with the content you linked. --N4G Miraflores 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If no concrete objection to mentioning Cuban support of the rebels, then that issue is settled.Ultramarine (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is presented above, you failed to counter it, feel free to continue that discussion and argue your point further, however creating new sections and re-arguing them is not helpful. --N4G Miraflores 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is false. I made the last argument in that section before you moved material there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. I will not participate in this splitting of discussion where you decide to ignore any comments made in the previous one. Your concerns were address above, and ignoring them will not net you the result you seek. --N4G Miraflores 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to continue a factual discussion in either place and I will answer.Ultramarine (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

^ McSherry 134.

[1] McSherry 134.

[1]