Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Dubious references

I'm starting to go through the references in this article, and I'm concerned that not all of them satisfy the requirements of WP:RS (specifically, the section on extremist sources). I took a look at a number in the first twenty or so:

-Monthly Review: Seems to be a pro-Communism organization with a decidedly anti-US bias.
-Syria Times: Published by the government of Syria, a well-known sponsor of terrorism.
-Center for Research on Globalization: Strong anti-US bias.
-Los Angles Times opinion piece being cited as a source: Come on now. No opinion piece in ANY newspaper can ever be a reliable source for anything.
-Worker's World: Another pro-Communist organization.

You can see a similar pattern with regards to many of the others. Jtrainor (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not these places have a particular political point of view; every source will have a particular point of view. The question is whether or not they are a reliable source for the information provided. First, i would argue that your characterization of each of these sources is wrong in and of itself; you obviously don't have much experience in the world if you're going to argue that the Center for Research on Globalization has a "strong anti-US bias". But i'm not going to get into that, now. None of the reasons you give for discounting these sources violates Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. It's as if you're arguing that we should not allow any facts presented by Cuba's Granma simply because it's a newspaper published by the Cuban government -- that's an absurd argument, of course, because then we would need to disallow any information from the CIA, U.S. State Department, the Library of Congress, and so on. Similarly, to argue that a widely read publication like Worker's World or the Monthly Review must be disallowed simply because they are "pro-communist" of course also implies that we must disallow anything published by the Washington Post, National Review, or The Nation, because each of these sources is "pro-republican" or "pro-american" or "pro-neocon".
Yet Wikipedia abounds with quotations and facts from all these sources. So obviously your arguments are specious. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to quote the exact text of the relevant section:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

Information from sites that are pushing an agenda cannot be trusted as reliable unless it is specifically about those sites. My argument is hardly specious and I do not appreciate your attempt to wave my concerns away. Jtrainor (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Widely acknowledged as extremist"? Hmmm...Monthly Review is an independent socialist journal, yes- but it is not extremist. I have never seen an english-speaking university or college that does not subscribe to it. It is available in most of the major corporate bookstores and magazine outlets too. It is regarded as one of the most serious scholarly journals on the left. It regularly publishes articles by authors who have made significant impacts in their fields: Paul Baran (economic history), Paul Sweezy (theory of monopoly capitalism), Robert McChesney (media studies), Samir Amin (development economics), Immanuel Wallerstein (world-systems theory), Gunder Frank (development economics) etc.,etc.,etc.- even a classic article by Albert Einstein. Part of the problem with your reasoning is that you are attacking the issuing institution (while mis-characterizing them as extremist) when you should really be looking at the qualifications of the author first. You also mis-characterize globalresearch. Moreover, the author for that citation, Denis Halliday, is a former United Nations coordinator in Iraq. It seems like an eminently well-qualified source to me.BernardL (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I could not have said that better myself. Well done, Bernard. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And i might add: an opinion piece certainly qualifies as clarification of the author's intent, if nothing else. The question here, though, is whether or not Dinesh D'Souza's editorial actually has anything at all to do with this article. I think it's clear that it doesn't support the assertions which it is used to attribute, and in addition to that the assertions made have only an extremely tenuous link to this article.. So yes, i think we can remove that one. As for the Syria Times piece: it's a word-for-word reproduction of a speech made by a British MP! How you could possibly think that an illegitimate source is, simply, beyond reasonable limits. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The following was not authored nor signed by me -- don't know why it's here -- Has my computer been hacked? I am re-installing OS as of nowStone put to sky (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Goodness! The article's header certainly has been expanding at an amazing rate! I wonder why it's been doing that all of a sudden! 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talk • contribs)

Dubious References - Preliminary issues

Preliminary issues is offered are:

  • When a website describes itself as an advocacy site, do we agree that it is then generally ineligible as a reliable source? I find that almost all advocacy sites are honest about this and look in the "about us" section for their self-evaluation of what they are.
  • Some advocacy sites describe themselves as "independent media" and try to claim they are a media rather than an advocacy site. These may or may not require a case by case evaluation by WP policies, with an initial presumption for "reliable". The WP policy suggests that if a marginal site reports news that no one else reports, that this should be considered. Raggz (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot get all of these references evaluated without a bit of consensus about how to do this? Raggz (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the exposure to date, I believe that we may presume tacit consensus on this. Raggz (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Advocacy sites often reprint articles occurring in the mainstream, and there is substantial precedent for allowing links to such articles. Also, advocacy sites often have experts working for them (think Heritage Foundation), and can offer various informed opinions. If the source is notable enough, then I see no reason that an advocacy site should not be allowed as a reliable source, as long as the attribution is done in an appropriately NPOV way. In other words, I would resist saying that advocacy sites are always good or always bad sources. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

WP:REDFLAG

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

  • surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
  • surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
  • Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material. Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

All of the citations being discussed need to be considered by the policy above.

Most of our article qualifies as: "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography". To retain these citations, it is important to offer reliable "mainstream news media" sources that confirm that inclusion is in compliance with WP policy for WP:REDFLAG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy (and this is just a subsection of the full policy we use to determine what we include and what we don't) is about things which may come up which "should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim." If any of these "redflags" are raised (which is often in the eye of the beholder as we've seen on this page), the policy emphatically does not say that in order "to retain these citations, it is important to offer reliable "mainstream news media" sources that confirm that inclusion." To assert that it does as Raggz has done probably a dozen times is to misread the policy. I've made this point in several sections already but am making it here since Raggz has either not seen or ignored it up until now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We just do not agree on WP:REDFLAG. Raggz (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, in any disagreement there is always the likelihood that one person is wrong and the other is right. In the case of this particular point of Wikipolicy, the overwhelming consensus is that you are wrong.
All of the information you have challenged based on the "Redflag" assertion is, after studied consideration of Wikipolicy, judged valid.
This thread may now be archived. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Monthly Review

Monthly Review is statred to be a political magazine with a policy for advocacy:

"Since its inception, Monthly Review has been a consistent and outspoken voice for socialism and against American imperialism. The editors of Monthly Review are prominent Marxists, but are independent, not aligned with a particular existing revolutionary movement (although they were early admirers of the Cuban Revolution, and generally support Third World revolutionary movements). In the pages of the Monthly Review, Marxism is not a political party but a philosophy; a looking-glass with which to view society. Its articles tend to be written mostly by academics — and researched and referenced as such — but are free of academic jargon. Founding editor Paul Sweezy saw the mission of Review as "to see the present as history." The magazine enjoys a steady readership and is more influential outside the U.S. than inside it."

Do we have non-tacit consensus that Monthly Review is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? Raggz (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No consensus whatsoever. Your characterization comes from a wikipedia article. Once again, wikipedia is not to be used as a reliable source. Moreover most if not all sources are "political", whether they describes themselves as such or not. If you are talking about establishing concrete criteria for which publishing institutions should be accepted, regardless of individual authorship, then you are addressing issues that are necessarily "global" which should be discussed in places that are concerned with global policy discussion like the Village Pump, [[1]] and thereafter taken to levels concerned with policy formation.BernardL (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPA. If you cannot be polite, then simply do not post things. Jtrainor (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate what, precisely, you considered impolite about that posting? I saw nothing impolitic whatsoever. In fact, from my perspective it seems that the transparent and neutral comment made by BernardL in no way violated common standards of decency, and so it is your comment - not his - that is in violation of WP:NPA. Not to mention qualifying as a none-too-veiled threat. So you may consider this a formal warning from me. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have a problem with Monthly Review, I suggest that you edit it there because here would not be the place. I have no interest in editing Monthly Review but will accept the opinion of the editors that do, if they change to say that it is not about political opinion. From what I read, Monthly Review is proud to do with what it does, probably does it well, and need not apologize to you. There is nothing wrong with being an excellent political opinion publication, nothing wrong at all.
We are not CITING WP, we are reading the consensus of other editors. Feel free to offer any reliable source here that Monthly Review is not about political opinion. If you don't do this, will you argue against consensus anyway? We are not debating any "global" issue, we are debating if a citation in this article complies with RS. Raggz (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
WP policy cannot be waived by consensus - or lack of consensus. You need to articulate why WP policy permits the citation to remain. Raggz (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Raggz: use of the Monthly Review as a source does not violate wikipedia policy. The author in question is clearly an informed commentator with authoritative knowledge of the subject being addressed. There is no reason to discuss this any further; the source material is clearly in accordance with WP policy, and so it stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I might be persuaded. Consider what appears on their "about us" page?
"At a time when many people have fallen into despair, when our opponents seem invulnerable, it's critical to have a magazine that challenges us to think, inspires us to action, and makes us realize that the impossible is only difficult, not insurmountable. That magazine is Monthly Review. —DANNY GLOVER"
Does any "mainstream media" source have a statement about their "opponents" on their sites? No, they do not. REDFLAG applies. WP's policy on "exceptional claims" applies. Raggz (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry if i seem like a broken record, here, but i'd appreciate it if you could detail precisely what claim it is making that you consider exceptional. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any claim for state terrorism is an "extraordinary claim" being challenged as a policy issue. In the case of the Monthly Review's terrorism claim, is it echoed by the "mainstream media"? If not, it is not a reliable source. If there is such an echo, then it is eligible as a citation here. This is a policy rather than content issue, so consensus regarding content is not required. The consensus issue is if there is a "mainstream media" echo of the "extraordinary" claim. Raggz (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This challenge is not to the source itself, it is to the claims made. Are there "mainstream media" echos? Raggz (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Several editors here have already spent quite a bit of time showing you how your usage of "mainstream echoes" is an unfortunate misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. It is too bad you cannot grasp how this is the case, but it is true. Thus, while i cannot speak for the other editors here, i personally shall be disregarding any objections you raise based upon that standard. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

National Review

The WP description for National Review is: "National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine of political opinion, founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. While the print version of the magazine is available online to subscribers, the web site's free content is essentially a separate publication. Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events."

Clearly also a political advocacy source that we should deem unreliable. Do we have non-tacit consensus that National Review is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? Raggz (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay and are you then proposing deleting all references to National Review throughout wikipedia except for those pages which are self-referential? That is exactly what is required if you are to be non-discriminatory.BernardL (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Raggz (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is reliable, although it would be best to make clear that its statements are made from a position of political advocacy. Abiasaph (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If we were to assume the level of crticisism that you two are suggesting then all statements would, in theory, originate "from a position of political advocacy". For my own part, i disagree with everything that the NR has to say and every idea it's based upon; that, however, does not mean that the opinions of someone who is criticizing an idea in its pages suddenly become illegitimate as a referent to that own person's ideas, just as it does not mean that the criticisms themselves are illegitimate. Once again: this source is clearly being used to demonstrate that there exist criticisms of the idea in question, nothing more. The same is true of the Monthly Review. There is nothing illegitimate about its use. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I initially misunderstood and misrepresented policy. I apologize. "Political commentary" by reliable sources seems to be permitted by policy. The "exceptional claims" policy at REDFLAG is where my present focus is.
I found an example of the National Review contrasting itself with the mainstream media", so I suggest that it cannot be considered a reliable source.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
NR is fine as a source. There are few publications with which I disagree more thoroughly, but it passes muster as a reliable source in a general sense, though as with anything else we would have to evaluate usage of NR (on a case by case basis (using NR as a means to argue against the notion that a given US action was state terrorism is fine--it's political opinion--using a random NR web column by a non-scientist as evidence against global warming would not be good). I'm far more concerned with Raggz's suggestion that NR contrasting itself with the mainstream media makes them unreliable. Are you being serious here? (this is a genuine question, not sarcasm). Academic journals, scientific researchers, and for that matter encyclopedias "contrast themselves" with the mainstream media all of the time--does this make them unreliable sources? Often the mainstream media itself is highly unreliable, and I would hope that everyone here regardless of their political leaning can acknowledge that. I'll take a look at the other source questions raised by Raggz when I get a chance, but given the rationale for keeping this one out (it is not the mainstream media) I already have my doubts about the others.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The WP "extraordinary claims" policy uses "mainstream media". WP:REDFLAG is the shortcut, but it doesn't work.
It is difficult to determine which are "mainstream" and which are not. Self-identification is probablly the best way, such a self-identification speaks to the publishers focus and intent. Raggz (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. This line of argument is just...incredible. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The policy issue is the 'extraordinary claims" policy. Policy limits publications that are not from the "mainstream media" if these claims are not echoed within the "mainstream media". Do we agree that this is policy?
This means that any article in the National Review is not published in the "mainstream media". This ALONE does not mean that we cannot use it. If the claim is echoed within the "mainstream media", it is still fine. This should not really be a problem for this article because the only citations that we need drop are those that are "extraordinary claims" unsupported by the "mainstream media". Raggz (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The section in WP:REDFLAG (which does work) to which you are referring mentions "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography." You are misrepresenting that policy. I can't even find that National Review as a source in the article (after a cursory search) so I don't know the context in which it is being used (which is important). However for our purposes the NR is clearly part of the "mainstream media." It is cited by the "mainstream media" all of the time (for example their recent endorsement of Mitt Romney, and attack against Mike Huckabee, received widespread coverage). The fact that the NR is critical of the mainstream media is neither here nor there. So is The Nation, The New York Times, and programs on PBS such as the News Hour. Criticism of the mainstream media does not mean you are not in the mainstream media and to suggest otherwise (as Raggz has done) is a deep logical fallacy (akin to saying that because I have criticized and distanced myself from certain actions by the United States that I am not an American).
Additionally, the sentence above refers to "surprising or apparently important reports" which is key. If NR was reporting something surprising ("John Edwards really is gay!") that no one else was mentioning then we would not use it obviously, as I already suggested above. But if the editors of NR are merely expressing their opinion on whether or not the US acted in a terrorist fashion than that that is perfectly legitimate. This article is, by its nature, full of political opinion--in large part that's what it is cataloging. Prominent journals of political opinion will thus often be appropriate as sources.
Raggz, I'm afraid I do see a bit of wikilawyering here on your part including "Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express" and "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." If you really want to try to remove all reference to National Review on Wikipedia then I suggest you mosey on over to a couple of other articles which use it as a source and propose a blanket deletion of NR-based info because it is "not the mainstream media." If you get the same reaction there you have received here (and I think you will) then you might consider the possibility that you are interpreting policy poorly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your point is that National Review is a mainstream source? Fine. I have some brain damage, a poor memory, so have lost track of the debate that far back. Could you please refresh my memmory, which "extraordinary claim" are we debating by the National Review? I cannot recall this. Raggz (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish I knew, but this is something your brought up Raggz. If your memory is really an issue for you I'm truly sorry, but in this instance I'm afraid I cannot help you as I'm not sure what you were concerned about in the first place. In a comment above in this very thread you said "The "exceptional claims" policy at WP:REDFLAG is where my present focus is." Why you brought it up in the context of the National Review and the above discussion I cannot say. If you concur that NR is (in general) acceptable as a mainstream source then I think we are agreed and can move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Syria Times

Agha, Mohammad (2005-07-08). British MP George Galloway opens up to Syria Times. Syria Times. Retrieved on 2007-07-09. This link is broken.

Syria Times: "Syria Times is an English-language Syrian daily newspaper.

Syria Times is published by the same government-owned company that prints the leading Arabic daily Tishreen. These two newspapers have a circulation (as of 2000) of respectively 5.000 and 60.000.

In March and April 2003 Syria Times received some international attention because of its harsh condemnation of the US-led war against Iraq, well in line with the official Syrian discourse in the debates of UN’s Security Council. For instance the Irish Times noticed that “Syria Times attacks Bush's "unholy war" and his "imperialist strategy to control the Arab oil-rich region””

In an interview with the Middle East magazine, Fuad Mardood, the editor of Syria Times, said: “I cannot imagine that there is anyone in Syria who wants to attack our policy (…) You can find people who have personal motives who may attack the system, but it is only to achieve personal goals.”

Clearly also a governmental propaganda source that we should deem unreliable. Do we have non-tacit consensus that Syria Times is "political" an thus is not a reliable source? Raggz (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fallacious logic. Being "political" or a Govt. Source, does not invalidate the notability of its allegations. We can report on them, provided with give attribution to the source. Everything is political, esp. dealing with this subject matter. What MP Galloway says, as reported by this paper, is quite relevant and should not be ignored.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Once again, no consensus whatsoever. The source is included as documentation of the speech by George Galloway. It provides a reference demonstrating that Galloway did, indeed, make the assertions in quesiton. It documents quotations of Galloway that are used to support the statements made in the article. As used in this instance it is a perfectly legitimate source. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Presently we have tacit consent for removal of this citation because no one has disputed that it denies the WP policy for "extraordinary claims" (which is before this entire section). Perhaps this issues was not phrased clearly enough because what we have discussed is about content, not policy.
The Syria Times is a government acting as a journalist. Governments are capable of propaganda. It has offered an "extraordinary claim", that the US has engaged in state terrorism. Someone needs to show a "mainstream media" echo, that serious mainstream journalists took this speech seriously enough to report it. If no one can show such an echo, by policy, this "extraordinary claim" is not a reliable source. Without such an echo being listed here, we do have tacit consensus for policy, even if we lack it for content. Raggz (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry again. No Tacit consensus. If this source reported claims of a British MP, there is nothing "extraordinary" about that. If the British MP involved has denied making the statements quoted in this source, then this source would be questionable. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Once again, you are categorically wrong. This is not a claim made by the Syria Times, but rather by George Galloway , the man who made the speech. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How do we know that George Galloway actually said what is claimed? THIS is the issue. The Syria Times is making an "extraordinary claim". If George Galloway really did accuse the US of state terrorism, I'm sure that this was covered by the "mainstream media". Governments are capable of propaganda. This is a state-owned journalist. The challenge is very fair. Just confirm the quote. Raggz (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If, as you seem to be implying, the Syrian Times misquoted Galloway, I believe that you would be responsible for finding some source impuning the accuracy of the ST article. There is no way that I could prove that Galloway has not recanted his statement. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote is challenged by the policy of "extraordinary claims". Logically this policy could never be enforced, if it worked the way you say it should be. Marginal publications say all sorts of things. The test is if only they are saying this. If no one in the "mainstream media" covers the story, then that proves that the extraordinary claim is ineligible. How do I prove that only the Syria Times covered this? No one can prove that this happened, it can only be proven that the "mainstream media did cover the story. I cannot find any evidence for a "mainstream" echo, so by policy, it is ineligible. Do you have any evidence otherwise? If so, please share this. Raggz (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the "extraordinary claim" in question? All the Syria Times is claiming is that George Galloway accused the US of terrorism. How is that extraordinary? It is not at all, as that is the kind of thing Galloway says all the time. You are proceeding as though the "extraordinary claim" is the accusation that the US committed terrorist and as though the Syria Times made that accusation. They did not (though if they had I see no reason not to report that). Galloway is the one making the "extraordinary claim" as you define it. He is a member of the British parliament and the fact that he said "The Americans guarded by the British killed thousands of people in Falluja. They didn`t care whether they were men or women, children or young , fighters not fighters. This is terrorism." (see below for link to full text) is clearly highly relevant for this article.
The Syria Times interviewed Galloway (see below link)--this is why no one else reported on it (sometimes very important interviews will be reported on by other news outlets, but often they are not). When you are saying "no one can prove that this happened" I assume you are saying no one can prove that the interview happened, but that is quite beyond the pale. Do you have any evidence that the Syria Times pretends to interview someone they actually did not and/or egregiously misquotes them? If you do not then why are they not acceptable as a source? The fact that they are apparently owned by the Syrian government is not a valid reason, no matter what one might think of the Syrian government.
The link to the interview in the article is currently dead. Here is a link at an apparent mirror site where you can read Galloway's comments if you have not already.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take your word for it. I accept that Galloway said it. Now, the question is if the "extraordinary claim" by Galloway/Syria Times was echoed by the "mainstream media"? An extraordinary claim need to be echoed by the "mainstream", Galloway is not the "mainstream media", in fact that source is self-published. Raggz (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You're way, way off policy here. This is an article about allegations made against the United States. Any reliable source that makes such accusations is worthy of inclusion. A minister of parliament is a reliable source. The idea that everything in this article must be echoed in the "mainstream media" and is not based on any policy that you will ever be able to cite. You also have not given any evidence that Galloway's claim is "extraordinary" beyond your own assertion (though that's not even really the point). As I explained in an earlier comment, you are misreading WP:REDFLAG and apparently not reading the rest of our verifiability policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise the RS policy? Irrelevant to the WP:REDFLAG. I am indeed interested in why you believe that I am misreading REDFLAG. You could be correct. So what am I missing? Raggz (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm raising the verifiability policy, of which "redflag" is a part. Firstly, please work on your linking. You need to say WP:REDFLAG with a colon (and brackets around it) in order to link to to it (when next you edit see how I did it in my previous comment). I explained below what your misreading was in the Cohn section but given that there are 50 different threads going on right now (a terrible idea, please stop brining up new threads while old ones are still being discussed--we're in no hurry) perhaps you missed it. I said below "If you re-read that [redflags] section of WP:V you'll notice that it says "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used."
REDFLAGS is just one section of the core verifiability policy. The more important aspects of the policy note that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reflags" is a way of saying "here are some signs that their may be a sourcing problem." Whether or not we remove a claim is still based on whether or not the claim is verifiable in a reliable source. The fact that that a particular claim raised a "redflag" (and again please note that you have had problems with certain claims while other editors have not--your "redflags" have been "so whats?" for others) does not warrant automatic removal according to policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor

Christian Science Monitor: "The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) is an international newspaper published daily, Monday through Friday. Started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, the paper does not usually use wire services and instead relies largely on its own reporters in bureaus in nineteen countries around the world. Many of the newspaper's staff editors and reporters are Christian Scientists, although membership in the church is not a requirement for employment.[citation needed]

Despite the name, the CSM is a newspaper that covers current events around the world. The paper professes that its purpose is not an attempt to evangelize.[1] With the exception of a daily religious feature on the The Home Forum page, the content represents international and United States news.

As of 2005, the print circulation is reported to be 71,000 but has a much larger online readership.[2]

Do we have consensus that this is a reliable source? Raggz (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. Abiasaph (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Source is reliable.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am editing out the following citation because it does not discuss state terrorism, nor does it discuss a charge defined at state terrorism. Regan, Tom (2005-09-29). Venezuela accuses US of 'double standard' on terrorism. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 2007-02-02. Raggz (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

IPS

On it's "about us" page, IPS claims to be BOTH a global news service AND a "voice" that will address issues outside of the mainstream. Here is a good source to debate, it claims to be both objective and to be an advocate. Are BOTH possible? Raggz (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Inter Press Service: IPS’s stated aims are to give prominence to the voices of marginalized and vulnerable people and groups, report from the perspectives of developing countries, and to reflect the views of civil society. The mainstreaming of gender in reporting and the assessment of the impacts of globalization are a priority.

In order to reach this aim, IPS does not lay claim to providing “spot news”, but instead to producing well-researched features and reports that give background information, and covering processes rather than events.

IPS may be unique in its concentration on developing countries and the strong relationships with civil society. For this reason, IPS has even been termed the probably “largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett and Rantanen, 1998: 174/5), being the “first and only independent and professional news agency which provides on a daily basis information with a Third World focus and point of view” (Boyd-Barrett and Thussu, 1992: 94; cf. Giffard, 1998: 191; Fenby, 1986).

Despite all the laudable aims, it is, however, important to see that IPS has never possessed the resources to be a major player in the international media landscape. Because of its focus on longer background pieces instead of concise news, it has at most a marginal status as news provider for mainstream media in developed countries. Its presence is more relevant on the Internet and in developing countries' media. Raggz (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Raggz (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not "it's a major player" is irrelevant. It's a reliable source accepted and cited by many credible publications. It's in depth reporting is often quite illuminating.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And, yes, any organization can be both an advocate and objective, in so far as anything is ever "objective." Objectivity is largely a fictional creature.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The question that remains is if its admission to be outside of the mainstream means that REDFLAG applies for "exceptional claims"? Why does only the Syria Times carry the news regarding the allegation of state terrorism? Is there another or better reliable source? Do you have a source that "any organization can be both an advocate and objective"? Raggz (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have consensus that IPS self-identifies as outside of the mainstream? Raggz (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to delete the reference below because it alleges a US double-standard on terrorism, but does not discuss state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Terror Case Erodes US Credibility, Critics Say", Inter Press Service, 2005-09-28. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

Nope. No consensus. At least four editors here say no. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We do not have consensus on content, agreed. We presently have tacit consensus on policy, in this case the "extraordinary claims" policy. One editor advocates that IPS is unreliable as a matter of policy and not one editor has yet to object on this policy question.
EXAMPLES:
  • Four editors challenge the NPOV deletion of material on the basis that they disagree with the NPOV policy. Their disagreement is irrelevant to consensus regarding policy, they need to cite policy to be engaged in any policy dispute. If they limit their participation to irrelevant arguments, they have actually offered no argument at all. The consensus is 1-0 in favor of the NPOV argument.
  • An editor challenges a citation on the "exceptional claims" policy, and four editors disagree on content grounds. Again the consensus is 1-0, because objections related to content concerns don't count for consensus regarding a policy issue.
  • An editor challenges a citation on the "exceptional claims" policy, and four editors disagree on policy grounds. Now the consensus is 4-1, because objections related to policy concerns do count for consensus regarding a policy issue.
Unless someone brings the challenged citations into policy compliance, or makes some valid argument against the application of the WP's "extraordinary claims" policy, we will have tacit consensus for the deletion of any citations successfully challenged on policy (not content) grounds. Raggz (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You are misapplying the policy. According to the 'logic' that you seem to be using, allegations of state terrorism in People would be the only sources that fit your application of criteria for NPOV sources. </facetiousness> Now let's get serious and quit wasting time. Your ludicrous inclusion of such obviously NPOV RS publications such as Atlantic Monthly and Christian Science Monitor within this list give little reason to take any of your concerns seriously.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When a source self-defines as being outside of the mainstream (as with National Review), we should accept this in regard to "extraordinary claims" that it may make. This is just WP policy. In fact "extraordinary claims" offered by any source, are generally (but not always) ineligible as WP sources.
  • The list is from those cited or raised here, and in order.
  • Any policy challenge is a serious issue to be resolved. Consensus is not required for policy implementation, but discussion should preceed this. I am pleased that you are raising policy issues and not content issues. You are the first to do so. Why shouldn't the WP "extraordinary claims" policy apply to sources within our article that are making extraordinary claims? This is the key question. Raggz (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Atlantic Monthly

The Atlantic Monthly: "The Atlantic Monthly (also known as The Atlantic) is a American magazine founded in Boston in 1857. Originally created as a literary and cultural commentary magazine, its current format is of a general editorial magazine which claims that its content focus on "foreign affairs, politics, and the economy [as well as] cultural trends" is primarily aimed at a target audience of "thought leaders"[1][2]. While many of The Atlantic's articles are nonpolitical or written from a moderate stance, the magazine is generally considered to have a liberal slant.[citation needed]

The magazine's founders were a group of writers that included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., and James Russell Lowell (who would become its first editor). The current CEO and group publisher is John Fox Sullivan.[3]"

I say it is reliable, but if there is objection, I likely will compromise. Raggz (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are authors who have articles appear in both National review and Atlantic Monthly (ie: Richard Posner). Are you suggesting that articles from the same author are automatically disqualified if they are in National Review but automatically qualify if they appear in the Atlantic? BernardL (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we follow policy. Which policy are you suggesting that we apply?
Every publication has different internal policies. Authors may write opinion pieces and also write serious research articles as well. Take Albert Einstein, he did both. His work published in Modern Physics has an entirely different context than if in Atlantic Monthly. We should accept Modern Physics as reliable (for physics) and not Atlantic Monthly, which is political opinion. Raggz (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
BernardL has persuaded me, I support him, the Atlantic Monthly is not reliable. Does anyone want to keep it? Raggz (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would make a more sincere effort try to understand what I am writing. You should understand that I completely reject this approach that you are offering for assessing reliable sources - because it excludes considerations of authorship, which are paramount. My last set of posts did not concern the question of rejection or acceptance of the journals listed above, rather they concerned the gaps and contradictions I noticed in your logic. However, FWIW, as institutions, I think they all seem fine, within the bounds of acceptability; but for a source to be reliable the authors have to be notable. Finally, you have misread the policy, what is disallowed according to policy is not material from institutions of political opinion, but rather material from institutions widely regarded to be extremist whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature. An example of such a source would be a link to an article on a website of a nazi revivalist group.BernardL (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely am open to any discussion that you may wish to have. Of course individual citations sometimes needs careful discussion. Look at the broader perspective, already some citations are tacitly agreed ineligible and other eligible, this is progress? Consensus for these may yet shift? We may debate each citation at length, if that is your preference.
I do not know RS well enough to engage you on this topic yet. I find your argument persuasive. My objective is NOT to get rid of any citation - but to find consensus for how to review them. Please propose an objective standard for review, one that conforms with policy, and you will find that I will give that policy serious and sincere attention. Raggz (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As the Atlantic is a magazine of political opinion, it seems perfect for an article that solely consists of political opinion. --Abia₪₪₪Saph 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article only articulates "allegations" and may not include facts. Such is our topic, we may not discuss facts. Raggz (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is confusing. Why not talk about facts? Opinions/allegations are composed, in part, of facts, which are alleged to comprise the basis for the allegation. The facts can be supported by various sources, in addition to the source making the synthesis of these facts. Also, note that the allegations themselves contain statements of fact, which we talk about--even if this is disputed by others (we report on that too).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Why not talk about facts?". Because we have arbitrarily limited ourselves to allegations. I suppose we can accept some facts, your point I conceed, is solid. My point is better stated as: We have precluded inclusion of any conclusions - but may only discuss allegations. I advocate changing the topic because an encyclopedia article that may not cite conclusions that actually may exist - but may make nothing but allegations, is not an encyclopedia article. Raggz (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the subject matter of the article is about State Terrorism committed by the US. These take the form of allegations, and rather undisputed facts. For example, no one disputes that US has been found guilty of the "unlawful use of force" by the ICJ, which is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations based in the Hague. Since there is no agreed upon legal language among all States about the precise legal definition, "unlawful use of force" is used, and then we have various scholars, such as Chomsky, who argue this is "state terrorism" they found the US guilty of. But we are dealing with facts here. Facts include facts about the allegations, and the allegations themselves are facts, of a notable nature, backed up with lots of evidence (i.e. more undisputed facts). So what we have here is simply a school of thought found within political science, international relations, and other disciplines, which makes these charges based on various actions committed by the United States that no one disputes (for example the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan). And, there are various conclusions that we do cite, provided we don't make up the conclusions ourselves, by linking A and B, to form our conclusion C. That is Synthesis. Otherwise, its fine to report the conclusions by various notable sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The case taken before the ICJ was later appealled to the Security Council where it remains unresolved. The United States has not been found guilty of anything. The ICJ decision however is factual. I'm fine with its inclusion. I'm fine with quoting that decision, or reliable sources about it. Most of the rest is unclear. Nuremburg determined that "the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan" was legal. This was of course a self-serving legal decision like the point preceeding, but it is a fact as well. International law on this subject began with a ruling that the actions of the United States are not subject to Nuremburg trials. We could have this in the article, but I see no real purpose.
If each charge of state terrorism is supported by a clearly defined definition, and the related facts, fine. Presently the US is accused of state terrorism by Granma because an alleged Cuban terrorist wanted in Venezula resides in the US. Is the US accused of terrorism by Granma? Yes. What did the US do? It allows the accused freedom. In effect, Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism for immigration/extradition policies. Does the article honestly explain what Cuba means? No, this article hides the facts and the truth.
Option A: Declare the definition of state terrorism for the entire article.
Option B: Declare the definition in each context.
Option C: Leave it as a deceptive useless mess. Raggz (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. The fact is the US was found guilty--by the highest court of law in the world, among a panel of international judges. The Security Council is not the judicial body, it’s the enforcement arm of the UN. Since the US is a member of the SC, the US simply vetoed to prevent enforcement in the form of either sanction or armed force. Btw, the judgment was first taken to the General Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in support of the decision and ordered that the US comply with the verdict. But rogue nations don’t follow the law, and instead continued to break it. And, yes, each charge of state terrorism is supported by by citations, and the related facts. The issue of defined definitions is dealt with in this article. This article is not a legal court; we simply report the facts surrounding the law, the definitions, and the various actions that various reliable sources implicate the US in state terrorism. This would be Option D. :) Your take on Cuba, quite frankly is nonsensical, and a major stretch of Synthesis. You are making your own conclusion about the charges by picking out one thing and turning it into an "immigration issue." That is a bit silly, not what the sources say, your own personal take, and it leaves out a lot of facts that do fit well with the definitions presented of state terrorism, i.e. it has nothing to do with immigration policy per se. Btw, even the FBI labels the Cuba groups that US has been implicated in supporting, as terrorist organizations. If anything the article can be expanded on this point. When I get some time, I'll pull up some more material on it. There is a lot.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You are wrong again, and playing straw-man games. As a court it is empowered to hear cases. On such cases, it can render a judgment of guilt or innocence -- just as civil courts do. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It seems there is no detail, no matter how trivially true, that you are not wrong on, here. Really, i think it would be best for everyone involved if you simply went to edit some other page more in tune with your mental preoccupations. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The ICJ finding was appealed to the highest court in the world, the UNSC, which did not confirm or deny the judgement. If the UNSC confirms the finding, it stands. If it never acts (as seems likely) the ICJ finding is not binding.
The UNSC is a diplomatic body and agreement -- not a court. The ICJ is a court -- not a diplomatic body. Once again, you are simply wrong. On legal matters the UNSC takes advisement from the ICJ -- not the other way around. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The UNSC is not really a court, but it has the supreme judicial function within the UN, the interpretation of the UN Charter. (read Article 39.) It is thus the supreme judicial tribunal for international law related to the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights.
Here you contradict yourself. Once again. And see nothing wrong with that. Once again. Which just goes to show us all that you are, truly, a very wrong person. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Btw, the judgment was first taken to the General Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in support of the decision and ordered that the US comply with the verdict. The UN General Assembly is without any authority to order anything. It is an advisory body that is free to express opinions on any subject, and it did.
Considering it is also the only world-wide gathering of diplomats on the planet then that "mere opinion" you so casually set aside is obviously worth considerably more than your own. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "But rogue nations don’t follow the law, and instead continued to break it." The Law in this case was strictly followed. The ICJ finding was appealed to the UNSC, which declined to offer an opinion, which nullified the ICJ finding. What law was broken?
It is not for you to judge whether or not "the law was followed". That is for the ICJ. The ICJ decided that it wasn't. So once again, you are wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "So what we have here is simply a school of thought found within political science, international relations, and other disciplines, which makes these charges based on various actions committed by the United States that no one disputes (for example the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan)." There is no serious debate (that I am aware of) that the use of nuclear weapons in war violated any international law. There is a debate if it was a moral policy, and there are other related debates, but there is no serious debate that this was illegal. You are not very well informed. I would appreciate it if you might share on reliable source for your hypothesis that the nuking of Japan was illegal, one that cites some specific international law. Search if you wish, nothing like that exists. (Feel free to prove that I am in error.)
Well, once again you are simply holding up your own lack of knowledge as the standard to which Wikipedia must conform. In any case, it is not for us to attempt such judgments; wikipedia reports, nothing else. Thus, this argument of yours is beside the point. The sources are accurately quoted and eminently reliable. Your use of "Redflag" is clearly wrong. These objections of yours, therefore, are equally wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "This article is not a legal court; we simply report the facts surrounding the law, the definitions, and the various actions that various reliable sources implicate the US in state terrorism." All solid points, however we are an encyclopedia discussing a legal topic. We need to report the actual facts accurately and we do not. (Note the many errors in your legal claims, above.) This article needs to discuss allegations, and it needs to offer the Reader a clear summary of what the allegation is specifically.
Great. Make a sandbox. Until you do, your objections shall simply be disregarded. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You state that there are no laws or legal definitions about state terrorism, but I disagree. Any action that violates the UN Charter may be broght before the UNSC for consideration. What form of state terrorism might we allege that does not violate the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, or some UN treaty? Our article needs to inform the Reader as to what the actual factual situation is (in my opinion). Raggz (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, i have no idea what you're talking about. Neither do i any longer care. Unless you make a sandbox or give us clear portions of text and sourcing you would like to see included, i for one shall from here on out give you only the courtesy of three- to ten-word rejections, depending upon how easy it is for me to summarize. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Asian Human Rights Commission

This site attempted to upload a virus when attempting to access their homepage. Update your AV software before investigating them.

"The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) was founded in 1986 by a prominent group of jurists and human rights activists in Asia. The AHRC is an independent, non-governmental body, which seeks to promote greater awareness and realisation of human rights in the Asian region, and to mobilise Asian and international public opinion to obtain relief and redress for the victims of human rights violations. AHRC promotes civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Its sister organization, Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) is an organization with General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Commission of the United Nations. AHRC and ALRC has its offices in Hong Kong."

I have a prejudice against organizations that PRETEND to be what they are not. They are NOT a Human Rights Commission. JUNK. NEXT. Raggz (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is reliable and i doubt quite seriously that it tried to "upload a virus". More likely your scanner was giving a false positive and you just don't have the common sense to figure out why. At any rate, the source remains. They are widely published specialist commentators in their field -- Asian human rights -- and are clearly an authoritative voice on the subject matter in question. Once again, your characterizations are inaccurate and specious. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a reliable source: On the board of directors of the AHRC:
Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer: Supreme Court Judge of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation and a well known human rights promoter, India.
Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati: Chief Justice of India (retired), one of the persons who introduced Social Action Litigation, India.
Professor Yash Ghai: Reputed Constitutional Expert and Spokesman on Human Rights, Hong Kong.
Mr. B. R. P. Bhasker: Reputed Journalist and a Trustee of Vigil India Movement, India.
Professor Byung-Sun Oh: Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, Korea
Mr. Kem Sokha: Member of National Assembly, Chairman, Commission on Human Rights and Complaints, Cambodia.
Professor Masanori Aikyo: Professor of Law at Nagoya University and Human Rights Advocate, Japan.
Mr. I. A. Rehman: Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan.
Sr. Mariani Dimaranan: Philippines Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, The Philippines.
Basil Fernando: Executive Director AHRC
They also appear to be a fully constituted NGO and produce annual reports (350 pages) etc.
The fact that Raggz has a prejudice against the organisation does not justify removing it. Pexise (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"The source is reliable and i doubt quite seriously that it tried to "upload a virus". More likely your scanner was giving a false positive and you just don't have the common sense to figure out why." Possibly true. Raggz (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Board of Directors are important to WP for what policy issue? We do not need consensus to make a policy violation deletion. Consensus may not overule RS. Is this a site and organization dedicated to political expression? It states that it is. We can debate this source in regard to WP policy for inclusion, but this is not the place to debate the Policy itself. Raggz (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"The fact that Raggz has a prejudice against the organisation does not justify removing it."
No it does not. Here we have a political association of activists that are pretending to be what they are not. We could debate if this impacts the credibility of this source, but it is ineligible for inclusion by RS anyway - so we don't get to debate policy, only if it applies. What part of RS do you claim supports including this citation? Raggz (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again you are making utterly unintelligible claims. What, precisely, is your objection to this organization? It is clearly headed up by a highly qualified board of directors. It is a registered NGO. It gives annual reports. It is a specialist in issues relevant to this page's subject matter. Why is it you consider them an unreliable source? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch does not pretend to be a Human Rights Commission. The Asian Human Rights Commission deceptively does this. They are making an "extraordinary claim", so WP policy applies. The best (and perhaps only) defense is to show that the "mainstream media" has also reported state terrorism. If this may be shown, then the WP policy will not apply. If not, by policy, it goes. Consensus is not necessary for policy to apply. Raggz (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that they are not admissible because you don't approve of their name? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The primary issue is of course if they are making a "extraordinary claim" as they seem to be. This can be resolved with a "mainstream media" source confirming their "extraordinary claim". No, I don't like fake "commissions" or fake "courts", but this is not a primary objection. Raggz (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that the claims they are making are disputed by comparable experts in the subject matter -- people in possession of equally comprehensive data and comparable experience in the field of human rights -- then i would suggest that it is in fact your own claims that are exceptional. Or at least, they seem so to me. Correct me if i'm wrong, but they seem to go something like this: "I'm Raggz, and i say this assortment of Supreme Court Justices and high-ranking members of the India Courts and government are making outlandish claims about the realities of Human Rights and legal activity in Asia."

If you can bring out some sources that make such a claim then we will weigh the two and see which one is more valuable to the article. Until that time, though, then i think we have consensus that your claims are rather hyperbolic. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem with what Raggz is saying is said user's constant invocation of a certain aspect of WP:REDFLAG to argue that any "extraordinary claim" (as Raggz defines it) must be immediately removed unless it is seconded it the "mainstream media." That's not what the policy says and I've already pointed this out to Raggz twice in prior comments somewhere in this unbelievable mess of a talk page. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that any mention Raggz makes of "extraordinary claims" as a rationale for deleting certain things is merely a "redflag" for that user's misunderstanding of our policies on verifiability. Sorry if that's harsh, but we're wasting a lot of time here debating things that don't need to be debated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Be harsh. It is part of editing sometimes. We are discussing a topic that by its very nature is primarily supported by "extraordinary claims". WP:REDFLAG is a policy unusually applicable to this article. If an article is frequently challenged fot NPOV or OR, does the frequency of the challenges invalidate these policies?
What does WP:REDFLAG mean to you? We agree that it is part of verifiability.
May an editor challenge any seemingly "extraordinary claim" for any good-faith subjective basis? Is there an objective means to deny such a challenge? Restated: are subjective challenges for "extraordinary claims" permitted by policy - and when challenged, must a "mainstream media" reliable source confirm the allegedly "extraordinary claim"?
"...we're wasting a lot of time here debating things that don't need to be debated." What specific things do not require debate? Raggz (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Criterion

The New Criterion is a New York-based literary magazine and journal of artistic and cultural criticism. Founded in 1982 by Hilton Kramer and Samuel Lipman, The New Criterion is published monthly. It is edited by Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball, and has a circulation of around 6000. It has sections for criticism of poetry, theater, art, music, the media, and books.

The magazine is known for an artistic classicism and political conservatism that is rare among other publications of its type. It describes itself as "America’s foremost voice of critical dissent in culture and the arts," "a staunch defender of the values of high culture," and "an articulate scourge of artistic mediocrity and intellectual mendacity wherever they are found: in the universities, the art galleries, the media, the concert halls, the theater, and elsewhere." [2]

It regularly publishes "special pamphlets," or compilations of published material organized into themes. Some past examples have been Corrupt Humanitarianism, Religion, Manners and Morals in the U.S. and Great Britain, and Reflections on Anti-Americanism.

TNC has been running The New Criterion Poetry Prize, a poetry contest with a cash prize, since 1999. In 2004, New Criterion contributors began publishing a blog, known as Armavirumque.

I believe that we have tacit consensus for retaining The New Criterion as a reliable source. Raggz (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh...no. I think what we have is a consensus for retaining this particular citation. Nothing more. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Criterion is a venerable cultural and literary mag operating from the conservative end of the cultural and political spectrum. In general it's a valid source--like most all of the other sources Raggz has brought up--but like any other source we should always evaluate it in terms of the specific context in which it is being used.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

.. as we are gracely allowed to cite CNN - for scientific details?
Who would argue they have the slightest insight into science after all of their silly statements about physics of steel frame buildings?
Entropius - --125.24.208.245 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Granma

Governments are excellent primary sources. When they operate as secondary sources, when they write as journalists about themselves, I do not believe that they should be considered as reliable sources. In this case, the Cuban Government is pretending to cover itself as Granma. I say NO, no to government propaganda. What do you say?

From Granma:"The newspaper is published daily and is widely read. Several weekly international editions, available in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese, are also distributed abroad. Also, news stories from Granma often are carried later in the Spanish-language sections of periodicals with a similar political base, such as People's Weekly World. Granma regularly features:

Speeches by Fidel Castro and other leaders of the Cuban government Official announcements of the Cuban government Popular sketches highlighting the history of Cuba's revolutionary struggle, from the 19th to the 21st century Developments in Latin America and world politics Steps by Cuba's workers and farmers to defend and advance the socialist revolution Developments in industry, agriculture, science, the arts, and sports in Cuba today TV listings for that day The normal edition is published six days a week (not Sundays) and runs to eight pages plus occasional supplements. Recent supplements have included one marking the electricity company's purchase of vans and trucks from China, and another marking the start of the 2006 football World Cup."

Dump it - or no? Raggz (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. We've already been around this one a long time ago. Granma is as much of a reliable source for evidence provided by Cuba as the is the New York Times or the U.S. State Department for evidence presented by the U.S. If you delete Granma based upon your arguments above then you must also delete all references to information provided by the U.S. State Deparment, New York Times and Washington Post, and that is a patently an absurd idea. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: the BBC is also a government-published news-source. Delete Granma and you must also delete everything by the BBC. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you are engaged with credible point.
The same is true of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Voice of America. There is a difference between the Department of State and the Voice of America. Are both equally reliable sources? No, my argument would not require deletion of government documents, but only of governments that comment as journalists. Can a government body be a journalist? You claim that the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by the government? You will need a cite for that claim. The U.S. State Department does not pretend to be journalists. Tell you what, I will review the BBC site to see if it addresses the issue that you raise. Will you please check Granma.
The subject is not "patently an absurd idea". Granma is not the "mainstream media".[2] Granma has compared itself to the "mainstream media", so has self-designated itself as out side of the mainstream.[3][4][5]
Take the claim by Granma that US immigration policy is a form of state terrorism. If this is true, why doesn't the editors at state terrorism support Granma's claim? (This theory should go there first). Why doesn't one single reliable source in the entire world claim that US immigration policy amounts to state terrorism]? What Granma is stating qualifies as: "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" by REDFLAG.
You can best establish Granma's mainstream status by finding reliable sources for this. It has contrasted itself against the "mainstream media" regularly, so has self-identified itself as ineligible. Raggz (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Since is an official govt. newspaper run by Cuba, as such it is quite notable. There is no reason to suppress the claims it makes. It should be reported on, and we should attribute the claims to it as the source, as the article does. So, again, what is the problem?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Notable? Fine. Granma defines itself in contrast to the "mainstream media" and we have a policy for such "exceptional claims" by such a source. See REDFLAG. Do you have a reliable source that denies it's self-description? Raggz (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how Granma defines itself, what matters is the reality: they are a notable source, and its certainly mainstream in Cuba, being the govt. official newspaper. I don't expect it to be mainstream within the capitalist controlled press. But all this is beside the point. What are the extraordinary claims you speak of? In regard to this subject, the extraordinary claim would be that an imperialist State such as the US, does not commit acts that various scholars, human rights organizations, journalists, and others, claim are acts of State Terrorism. That the US is accused of such is not extra ordinary at all--its expected of imperialist states to behave as such internationally with the user of political violence that includes terror. So unless you have a source that denies the existence of state terrorism, its hardly an "exceptional claim."Giovanni33 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You have conceeded that Granma is in fact outside of the "mainstream", except possibly within Cuba? Good.
If the claim is not "extraordinary" (which is not the same as a false claim), why does it only appear in Granma? Why doesn't one other article in the entire world claim that US immigration policy toward those sought by Cuba is a form of state terrorism? The proper response (in my view) is to offer another reliable source that supports this "extraordinary claim".
Is the "mainstream press" only the capitalist controlled press? Is there a conspiracy by capitalists to silence certain facts? Raggz (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so instead of questioning the validity of this source, lets look at the specific claim its being cited for, and yes, we should be able to find another source that substantiates its claims. This talk about if this source is "mainstream" or not, is a dead end, as this is a very notable source, being a government paper of Cuba. As far as your question about conspiracy, no, its a question of bias, ideology, and market forces at work. There have been many studies done on the subject, Chomsky's work on media bias being the most well known. My point was only that if you happen to define "mainstream" as being the major western capitalist "agenda setting" media, then this reflects a bias criterion. Lets look at the claim and see if its repeated by any other sources. Also, where is the claim you refer to in the article? I looked for immigration but did not find it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is "mainstream"? That is the best question asked so far. Granma has self-defined itself not to be. Is this an exceptional claim? Not if the "mainstream press covered" this story, it is if they ignored it.
Notability is not an issue. Conspiracies are not an issue? Good.
You say: should we "define "mainstream" as being the major western capitalist "agenda setting" media, then this reflects a bias criterion"? The answer is clearly yes at Wikipedia (in my opinion). Please refer to "exceptional claims" in REDFLAG. How do you read Policy on this? Raggz (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your redflag link is not pointing to any policy page, but I know the policy you refer to. The question here is what is the exceptional claim you are referring to? Lets not get side tracked. Lets look at the claim in question that you feel needs further citation for support. I looked in the article and could not find any claim about immigration policy being a form of state terrorism. Lets look at the actual verbiage that this article uses and what the source says. Then, if the claim seems exceptional, it doesn't hurt to look for another source, even though this source is a credible and notable one.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The exceptional claim is that the US government is committing state terrorism. Governments acting as journalists sometimes issue propaganda, which is not a reliable source. They also sometimes report the news and do function as journalists. The WP Policy test in this case is if the extraordinary claim by Granma was government propaganda or not is if the "mainstream media" also covered this "extraordinary claim". This source has been challenged as propaganda, as an "extraordinary claim". To retain this source, you need to show that the "mainstream media" took the charge that US immigration/extradition policy regarding Luis Poseda as state terrorism seriously enough to even report. If you cannot, by Policy, it is not a relaible source. Raggz (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You fail to make a case why that claim is exceptional. As I said, the counter claim that the US does not commit political violence of the sort scholars describe as State sponsored terror, would be the exceptional claim. So I think you have it upside down. About the government newspaper, you are only repeating your bias, not policy. There is no policy that describes one kind of source as propaganda and another as not. This is your POV, not policy. In reality, all news media has propagandistic elements to it. Also, the mainstream media in the US ignores many major stories that are major mainstream news in other countries. So, I hope you don't equate "mainstream" with US, corporate news media. That would reflect a further bias.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Before an article that clearly has more than 100 supporting citations by notable representatives and mainstream publications you are claiming -- please correct me if i'm wrong -- that an assertion by the Cuban government that it has been attacked by the United States is somehow an exceptional claim? Please -- explain for us how this is so. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You hit that one on target. Is our article "Allegations of nations attacked by the United States"? If so, there is mainstream support, but this is not our topic. What you need are allegations of state terrorism by the US from the mainstream media. Presently you have none. Raggz (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Facts about Granma:
  • If accepted as a source it is a primary source.
  • It is a government-owned media outlet in a state without any freedom of the press. A statement by Granma is the same as an official government press release.
  • The government of Cuba is the plantiff in an 18 billion dollar lawsuit, with the objectivity of any plantiff. Raggz (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Source is reliable per WP:RS. BBC is definitely not a "free press. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nation

The Nation (ISSN 0027-8378) is a weekly [1] U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left." [2] Founded on 1865-07-06 at the start of Reconstruction as a supporter of the victorious North in the American Civil War, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. Dump it? I say yes. Raggz (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand. Please elaborate? Raggz (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate what your objection is to using this as a source. Of course it would be a political magazine since this article is about a politically based charge: US state-terrorism. Of course it would be a source of the left, since the left originates most of these charges. This goes without saying. I don't see the problem. This article documents and presents the multiple and serious allegations of acts of state terrorism of the US. Occasionally we have libertarian sources that makes the same claim, but very rarely a conservative source. But this should not matter. Provided there is not reason to assume the various and multiple sources listed to describe the instances they allege are acts of State Terrorism by the US, there is no reason to not use them here for that purpose. This goes for all the other sources you've listed here. You seem to be applying the wrong standard for this article. This is not an article on a scientific phenomenon.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points, all. I have switched arguments, sorry if you missed the one comment on this. I believed that a reliable source could not be political commentary. I was in error. I apologize for this error.
I'm now questioning if the "exceptional claim" policy applies, a more limited challenge. On this one, I have no argument that it does apply. I may discover ground for such a claim. Insightful comments, all. Raggz (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Transnational Institute

Transnational Institute (TNI) is an international think tank for progressive politics. It was established in 1974 in Amsterdam and serves as a network for scholars and activists. Though now independent, it was established as the international programme of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies.

TNI receives part of its institutional funding from the Samuel Rubin Foundation (New York). In addition, it is supported on a project basis by a range of funders, including church agencies, peace and environmental organisations, European foreign and development co-operation ministries, the European Commission, and private foundations in the United States and Europe.

A tough call. I say look carefully at this one. It serves as a network for scholars and activists? If it said scholars, fine. If it said activists, no. People can be both, so my preliminary thought is fine, let it stay? Raggz (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I challenge Landau, Saul (2003-02-13). Interview with Ricardo Alarcón. Transnational Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-10. It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for fifty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests fifty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past fifty years, not just thirty years back. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The interview is with a notable, informed expert on the matter. The claims made in it are a direct transcript. The organization that conducted the interview are a reliable source. Your objection that the relevant portions of the interview are exceptional are, in and of themselves, exceptional. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Workers World

http://www.workers.org/ Enough said? Raggz (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It claims that the US has been waginging terrorism against Cuba for forty years. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires support from a "mainstream" echo, or need be determined to be ineligible. Is there any "mainstream media" echo that suggests forty years of terrorism? There are many discussing "military intervention", but terrorism? In particular have there been any claims for state terrorism since US law changed following the Church Committee? Support would need to be over the past forty years, not just thirty years back. Raggz (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims of the Cuban government regarding their understanding of the U.S. relationship to covert actions taken against them are unremarkable and have been widely published these last four decades (don't tell me you haven't heard of the Bay of Pigs?). Once again, it is your claim that is exceptional -- not the sources'. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You presume that the Bay of Pigs involved state terrorism? By what definition? By what reliable source? Raggz (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio Havana Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Website http://www.rhc.cu/ Radio Havana Cuba (Spanish: Radio Habana Cuba, RHC) is the official government-run international broadcasting station of Cuba. It can be heard in many parts of the world including The United States on shortwave at 6.000Mhz and other frequencies. [1]

A primary government run source. Fine. Subject to the primary source limitations of policy. Raggz (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma, the BBC, AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here.Stone put to sky (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Governments pretending to be journalists are not really journalists. Raggz (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Then i suppose you also want all references to the BBC and Voice of America deleted, as well? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that is an extra ordinary claim. That is like me saying, "corporate new media organizations don't have real journalists." Of course that statement would be equally exceptional in nature, and quite frankly false, although it may be a POV. The fact is that journalism is simply the discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news in many media, but mainly in newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Then i suppose you also want all references to the BBC and Voice of America deleted, as well? Yes, if they violate policy. No, if they do not. Raggz (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider that the BBC has freedom of the press and this radio station does not. Raggz (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about the BBC. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Solidarity

Cuba Solidarity is a campaigning group based in Trinidad and Tobago that supports Cuba and the Cuban Revolution. Its Constitution it set out its Founding Principles which are:

  • Trinidad and Tobago Cuba Solidarity supports the gains of the Cuban Revolution and the development of socialist Cuba.
  • Central to this philosophy is the belief that all countries have the right to self determination, national sovereignty and have the right to chose their own social, political, economic and cultural development. Implicit in this approach is fundamental opposition to the blockade and sanctions of American imperialism and all foreign intervention which attempts to undermine the achievement of the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban people.
  • The role of Cuba Solidarity is to build support for socialist Cuba in Trinidad and Tobago and to co-operate with all organisations and individuals nationally, within the Caribbean region and internationally which support these broad objectives.

The objects of Cuba Solidarity are to:

  • mobilise support for socialist Cuba
  • co-ordinate common actions and campaigns in friendship and solidarity with the people of Cuba
  • promote awareness about the Cuban reality by information distribution to groups and institutions including the mass, independent and local media.

No, not pass. Any one want this one? Raggz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we wasting so much time and space on sources? Using Raggz criteria there would be very few sources left. FOX News is as much if not more of an advocacy group than any he has mentioned so does he want to dump that as well? Leave it Raggz, as sources will be disputed when appropriate. Wayne (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Go to the Fox News homepage. Read "about us". Then post here the part that you feel denies WP policy? I also would go to Fox News, to see if those editors find Fox News to be a marginal source. I have never been to either of these and if you want to make a case against FNN from these, fine with me. This is pretty much how I screen citations, but we could instead use you preferred method. What method do you suggest? Raggz (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What is this source used for that warrants the objection for its use? I don't see what your objection is.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims". If this claim is limited to this single source, then it is at risk. If the "mainstream media" have widely reported this as well, it is sustained. Which is it? Raggz (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is it about those claims that you find exceptional? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of state terrorism by the US. Raggz (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
After Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib I don't believe that you can any longer claim that the mere allegation of state terrorism commited by the US will fall under 'exceptional claims'. A great segment of the world's population would not consider such claims as being unbelivably shocking, and therefore your insistance of REDFLAG does not carry any weight with me. Do you have any verifiable sources to support your position? If I looked I think that I could find recent surveys that would back up mine. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously I do dispute that "the mere allegation of state terrorism commited by the US will fall under 'exceptional claims'". May we now agree that the policy is applicable? All that is needed to deny a "extraordinary claims" challenge is to prove that the "mainstream media" is echoing the opinion of Cuba's government-owned radio station that the immigration and extradition policy of the United States is a form of state terrorism. I don't doubt that you can find such criticism, but to claim state terrorism, I doubt that there is any "mainstream" support. We can debate the policy, but we cannot modify the policy, nor deny implementation with a debate if it is a good policy.
Presently, this source is sucessfully being challenged for having made an "extraordinary claim", a claim ineligible for citation. If what you claim to be true is actually true, denying this challenge will be easy. Raggz (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(indent) If you retract your (in my opinion ridiculous) blanket claims of all of these sources 'failing' to be NPOV RS (Perhaps using something like the striketrough so we know that the conversation has moved elsewhere), we can start over addressing your specific claims for specific sources. Preferablly one at a time, so that we can avoid this multiple thread discussion that is simply wasting multiple editors times and going around in circles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider the relevant material cited: "Alarcon added that Cuban-American terrorist Luis Posada Carriles -- who recently boasted that his activities were paid for by the right-wing group -- freely moves about in the United States following his escape from a Venezuelan prison in 1985." There is much about Luis Posada, but nothing about the US, except that he "freely moves about in the United States". It is an exceptional claim, is it echoed in the "mainstream media"? If not, it is not an eligible citation. Raggz (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
that Posada and Bosch (his handler) freely move about the U.S. is not disputed by anyone except, perhaps, you. So it is in fact your own claim that is exceptional, not the one posted here. I have, however, provided several sources below which corroborate this source (actually, one is a derivative work that quotes the primary sources -- but the quotations are taken from undeniably reliable sources). Stone put to sky (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no dispute that Posada and Bosch are free to freely move about the US. Why is this relevant? You are actually maling my point. This is what the article calls state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Marjorie Cohn's 2002 Arab Studies Quarterly Article

Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Retrieved on 2007-07-09.

"Distinctions will be drawn between individual terrorism (the September 11 attacks); International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians); State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel); and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)."

This citation is challenged by Red flag. First, it is an opinion piece that is now six years old, written before Iraq. Second, it makes multiple claims that the mainstream media does not cover.

  • International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan
  • State regime or Government terror (Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians
  • State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel
  • and a national liberation struggle (Palestine)

Does anyone have a reliable mainstream media citation that supports any of the four allegations above? If not, policy says it is ineligible. Also consider that she alleges that "State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel" is state terrorism, but this garnered a Nobel Peace Prize. I suggest that only a marginal source would allege that an effort that earns a Nobel Prize is an expression of state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. What is Red Flag? And why is a challenge by this Red Flag relevant? This citation is a legitimate scholarly article that can be used. Such a differenciation of the different types of terrorism is common place; it does not make any controversial claims either. Its claims can be supported by any number of other sources. The fact that its six years old is irrelevant, as is your alleged reason a Nobel Prize. All non-relevant.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I put RED FLAG where REDFLAG was intended. REDFLAG. The Article cites her for: "The United States has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by legal scholars, other governments, journalists, and human rights organizations". This is an extraoridinary claim under REDFLAG.
She attacks a policy that earned a Nobel Peace Prize to call it state terrorism. Why do you call the awarding of a Nobel Prize an "alleged reason"? Do you dispute that this occured, or what? Are there mainstream media claims that this policy state terrorism? There are many that are critical, but to call it state terrorism, is there even one? Raggz (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't see anything called "redflag" where your linking to, nor know of anything that says the claims of this article's subject fall under it. These are rather broad based claims that have been given much attention within the scholarly community, activists, governments, human right organizations, and others. There is nothing exceptional about these specific claims (that the US has been accused of...etc). In fact the claim is so non-exceptional in nature that it has its own Wikipedia article. Its a notable claim that deserves and can fill its own article on the subject. So I question your premise that its extraordinary in nature. But, even if you think it is, a purview of the literature supporting the subject should dissuade you of that notion. Rather, the reverse would be the exceptional claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at Marjorie Cohn. She is a law professor who specializes in International Law. She is Pres. of the National Lawyers Guild and a commentator on BBC, CNN, etc. In this topic that clearly counts as a reliable source. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Marjorie Cohn is noteable, the challenge is for her "extraordinary claim" that the actions of the United States that resulted in a Nobel Prize were actually state terrorism. Providing aid to Israel and Egypt, as required by the 1979 agreement, has been criticised as poor public policy in the "mainstream media". To deny this claim of an "extraordinary claim", you now need to show that her claim that this was actual terrorism was echoed in the "mainstream". Presently we have tacit consensus on this policy issue (if not consensus for content). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Forget Marjorie Cohn, who is of course notable, more important is Arab Studies Quarterly which was founded by Edward Said and "was the largest circulating journal in English devoted exclusively to the Arab world" until it folded in 2003. It's an academic journal, i.e. it's just about the best source possible. Academics routinely make new claims--that's their job in large part--which are not covered in the mainstream media. By your "redflag" argument here we would have to remove all journal articles or books which have ever said something not discussed in the mainstream media (I shudder to think what this would do to say, articles about people from the 1600s, since the "mainstream media" tends to ignore that era). You're wildly overplaying your hand with this redflag argument. If you re-read that section of WP:V you'll notice that is says "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" (emphasis added). It does not say "certain red flags should prompt immediate removal of sources" which is what you are arguing for, contrary to policy. For the most part what you are calling "red flags" are not that at all given the examples in the policy, but even if they were that would not necessarily warrant removal, rather closer inspection of the source in question and the way in which it is used (for example Syria Times might often be a bad source, but for use in quoting comments by a prominent minister of parliament it is perfectly fine).
All of this discussion strikes me as unhelpful. Raggz, if you have a problem with a source, describe that in terms of how it is used in the article, not in general terms. The latter is not getting you anywhere and probably will not. If Marjorie Cohn's article, or the National Review, or anything else is actually being used poorly in the article then I would join you in calling for it's removal. Calling for blanket removal of certain sources that are clearly at least somewhat reliable is a bad way to go about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have confused you by changing arguments as I better understood the "extraordinary claims" policy that I put in ahead of all of these challenges. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that the very financial assistance that won President Carter the Nobel Peace Prize was actually state terrorism. I call for removal of this citation by this policy. Sorry if I confused you, no blanket source removal is still advocated. Raggz (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, it's an academic journal (a very good source) which can actually make extraordinary claims--this is what I was saying. But where does Cohn say that "the very financial assistance that won President Carter the Nobel Peace Prize was actually state terrorism?" I have not read the article but the word "Carter" does not appear anywhere. Cohn seems to be talking about US support for Israel since the second intifada. That's not the same thing as the Camp David Accords so why are we even talking about them? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is expressed above, but Cohn says no such thing. The US has funded Israel and Egypt since the Camp David Accords and with (perhaps) minor additional funding, she is claiming that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for state terrorism. This makes her vulnerable to a challenge for "extraordinary claims" since it is absurd on the face, and no member of the "mainstream media" has echoed her charge. PLEASE, just offer a mainstream echo, not an irrelevant argument. Raggz (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
International State terrorism (United States and United Kingdom bombing of Afghanistan); ... State-sponsored or State-supported terrorism (United States financial and military support for Israel);
(Yawn) 218.160.176.184 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
To Raggz, where does Cohn claim "that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for state terrorism?" Please quote her directly. You cannot of course, which is why you do not have a case here. Previous comment from the anon IP shows she does accuse the US of state terrorism and it's already been demonstrated that she's a reliable source and that you are using the notion of "extraordinary claims" incorrectly (I'd like you to acknowledge that you understand this). All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion and I don't even know why you're claiming that it does. Can we move along?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets begin with REDFLAG? My understanding is that "extraordinary claims" may be challenged by this policy, and that when challenged by this policy, all that is required is to show that some "mainstream media" reliable source echoed the claim challenged as an "extraordinary claim".
I have challenged this citation. The US funds Egypt and Israel as part of the Camp David accord that resulted in a Nobel Prize. Cohn claims that US funding to Israel is actually state terrorism. On this subjective basis and on a good-faith intent, I challenge her claim to be an "extra-ordinary claim".
By my understanding of this policy, all that is required to deny my challenge is for a reliable source within the "mainstream media" to confirm her challenged claim.
Where is the dispute? Do we agree on what the policy means? Raggz (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We do not agree on what WP:REDFLAG means (for the third time, notice how I link that--you are not linking it correctly). I explained above in this very section and in one or two other sections why you were misinterpreting it. Please re-read that as I will not explain it again until you've actually looked at it. Your argument about Camp David = State Terrorism remains invalid because Cohn never said that. I know you've challenged the citation, but you have not provided a valid rationale for doing so and despite repeated attempts on my part (and at least one other editor) to explain why you are using the "redflag" section of WP:V incorrectly you don't appear to understand what is problematic in your reasoning. Again, read an earlier comment of mine in this thread before asking me to explain it to you for the fourth time. This is beyond tedious.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will make this simple. Is there a reliable source (other than the one challenged) that suggests that US funds sent to Israel is a form of state terrorism? If there is, debate over. Why can't we do this the easy way? If you already have offered a confirmatory "mainstream media" reliable source, I apologize, I missed this. If you have not, may we drop this debate and "cut to the chase"? What mainstream echo is offered? Raggz (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are making it complicated. I asked you to re-read what I wrote above in this section on WP:REDFLAG. Did you? You are misreading the policy. A "mainstream echo" of Cohn is not necessary in the slightest and anyway I have no idea what that even means. So we can know where we stand, please explain to me the difference in how we read WP:REDFLAG (this will require you to read and understand my argument above in this same section as I have already done for you) and then we can go from there. I think that you are misapplying this policy all over the page and have said so repeatedly. I will not discuss any content issues with you until this is addressed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Counter Currents

^ Counter Currents, 2004 June 19, "Who Is Allawi?" http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan190604.htm; World War 4 Report, "Iraq Meets the New Boss" http://ww4report.com/static/iraq5.html

This citation does not mention terrorism. Is there a reason to retain it? Raggz (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

There is no good reason why our entire editing agenda should be consumed by user:Raggz's frequently spurious interventions. Stone Put to the Sky had initiated some discussion about re-inserting the Philippines section, which had previously been blanked without any discussion by user:TDC. I retrieved the old material and put it to my sandbox...[[2]]...Please indicate if the you think the material is ready for inclusion, and/or feel free to make or discuss any changes that might lead to its improvement. BernardL (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BernardL for being proactive with improving the article. I think the original wholesale blanking was wrong to begin with, and was done without consensus. This was a time this article was under attack and many sections were outright blanked without good cause. Unfortunately, that section was not restored as the article became protected for several months. I think its correct to take this careful approach by working on improving the material and seeking comment here prior to inclusion, although I think that the default possition should be inclusion unless there is clear consensus to not include it (since its removal was done without consensus). The material looks good and I hope other editors contribute or comment on it.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sections requesting discussion of the Philippines section have been open for about a month. For my part, although I think the proposed section is not perfect, I think it was unjustly blanked without any discussion. Since thre are no substantive objections, the section should be re-inserted, anyone with specific issues should bring them up here in talk. BernardL (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with your exercising your editorial vision. The former weakness was that the material was entirely in violation of WP:SYN, a weakness that when corrected would permit reverting. A strong reliable source that links the events to state terrorism is necessary. Without this link, the material violated policy in my opinion. Raggz (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting that you are so familiar with what the "former weakness" was; i presume you have looked up the diffs and gone back to do your research. Good for you! You're improving!
However, i would like to ask: just where is the "synthesis" involved? The section is divided into three parts: the first establishes that there are some serious human rights violations taking place in the Philippines, that they are widely acknowledged by the International community, and that there are multiple, notable Philippine sources which accuse the United States of complicity and support for these acts of state terrorism. In those sources we have a Catholic priest who heads up a major human rights organization that has been recognized with at least three national awards from the governments of three different European countries; we have a Professor from the University of the Philippines; we have the largest labor organization in the Philippines; we have the paraphrased testimony of a Filipino senator; and we have several articles by a Fulbright Scholar, Professor, and human rights organizer; all of these explicitly use the phrase "state terrorism" and associate it directly with the United States. Do you feel something else is needed?
Moving on, the next passage demonstrates that the International community acknowledges that the actions fit the definition of State Terrorism as outlined in this article and gives details about the undeniable connections with the Philippine military and government.
The next demonstrates that the U.S. presence in the Philippines is extremely powerful, that the U.S. exercises fundamental -- perhaps primary -- influence over the Philippines' military, that there has recently been a dramatic increase in military and personnel exchanges between the two countries, and finally that the U.S. has publicly acknowledged its presence will contribute to "human rights violations" and has taken steps to protect its soldiers from prosecution.
The next section describes a specific instance wherein the Government of the Philippines has been widely condemned as either complicit in or directly sponsoring State Terror and goes on to document at least two instances where the activities of this particular individual have been directly linked to U.S. aid.
The final section outlines the clear complicity and wide international condemnation of the Philippine government and concludes with an explicit condemnation of U.S. state terrorism by a notable source: the Permanent People's Tribunal, Philippines. The PPT is an organization that was expressly created to explore and help establish international law; it has existed for well over 35 years; and it is currently organized via the Bertrand Russel Society, which is itself explicitly neutral regarding its political, governmental, or religious affiliations and cooperations.
I am perfectly happy to see this all cleaned up a bit -- i do think it could be clearer -- but in light of the five or six sources that obviously associate the words "state terrorism" with the United States it seems to me that your protests of some sort of "synthesis" just don't make any sense. Perhaps i'm missing something? Why don't you explain a bit. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not suggest that the US has comitted any state terrorism. It says that the government of the Philippines has, and that it gets US aid. If we want to add a new definition for State Terrorism, bilateral diplomacy and military aid, fine. Otherwise, no. Please read WP:SYN. Raggz (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. This has already been explained above. Challenge away, but please do not delete or add material without a sandbox. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed

However you want to argue about the morals of it, the bombings were legitimate acts of war, done by in-uniform members of the United States armed forces, and as such, do not fit any definition of terrorism. This article isn't entitled "Criticism of military actions taken by the United States in World War II" and should try not to be a fishing expedition for anything the US has done that someone may not have liked. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, however many notable scholars, as reported in this article, clearly think otherwise: i.e. they see this as a major act of State terror by the US. For you to advocate that we ignore this wealth of scholarship on the question and delete it all simply because you personally believe it is not is the height of absurdity, and not the way WP functions. Its not what we do here. And you are totally wrong about this act not meeting definitinf of State Terrorism. The basic definition of State terrorism involves the states use of violence that is principally targeting Civilians to achieve a purpose that is psychological in nature, i.e. militarily second. This fits exactly what the scholars allege the US perpetrated in its great horror against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that it occurred in the context of the word does not in any way preclude these facts.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec with Giovanni) The idea that "the bombings were legitimate acts of war" is your opinion, and that section of the article cites several experts (Michael Walzer, Howard Zinn, Richard Falk, etc.) who disagree with you there. There are a number of credible folks who view Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of state terrorism. As such the section is very appropriate for this article. You're of course free to disagree with their assessment, but simply asserting that the bombings were legitimate acts of war does not warrant removal. Turkish authorities may claim that the Armenian genocide was a legitimate act of war (and believe me I'm not saying the two actions were equivalent), but of course that does not mean we have to describe it that way, though we would of course want to include the official Turkish point of view on the matter, just as we should include the official US view--or the view of US sympathetic scholars--in this article. I think the real problem with this section of the article is that it does not include opposing views (of which there are a whole bunch) which argue that the bombings in Japan were justified and (either implicitly or explicitly) that they were not state terrorism. Would you be willing to help work on adding some material on this? I could try to see what I can find. I know of some work that tries to summarize the scholarly literature on the topic and hardly any of this literature refers to the bombing as "state terrorism" which I think is worth pointing out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Source. I dug into my old copies of Diplomatic History to find the essay I was thinking of, an April 2005 piece by J. Samuel Walker called "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground." It's probably the best recent overview of the literature on this issue, published by the leading journal of US diplomatic history, and written by one of the most respected scholars of the atomic bombing of Japan (he wrote a book about it). He basically details the debates between the "traditionalist" and "revisionist" schools and discusses new arguments. I'll check more carefully, but I don't think the question of whether the bombings were "state terrorism" ever comes up in the literature he describes. As Walker notes "The fundamental issues that has divided scholars over a period of nearly four decades is whether the use of the bomb was necessary to achieve victory in the war in the Pacific on terms satisfactory to the United States." I think that is quite accurate, and it implicitly make the point that whether or not it was state terrorism is very much not the issue. It seems to me that we should point out that scholars have traditionally not concerned themselves with this question and I think that might help to allay some of Jtrainor's concerns and the concerns that other editors have brought up in the past. There are almost certainly other ways to get at the "not state terrorism" side of the argument but I think including something along these lines might be useful. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I like your thoughts, and I've tried to do with with talking about the general range of consensus regarding the issue of the bombings, but just briefly. My concern here is that we do not get off track from the scope of this section and subject, but stick to the claims (and counter claims) dealing with scholarship surrounding the subject, i.e. dropping these bombs as acts of state terror. I think its perfectly fine, thought, to say that the main question scholars have looked at was the "fundamental issue," that has divided scholars, as part of laying out the basic academic ground (but only briefly so we dont get off tracked and create a fork--these belong in the main article on the subject). I do think there is room to explore the sympathetic side, and I found one source that argues that point of view, and deals with the claims of state terrorism. He actually acknowledges that it was State Terror but that sometimes state terror is justified, because...Perhaps we can explore his views a bit more since he represents an historian who supports these bombings (but not give too much weight).Giovanni33 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There are allegations for state terrorism for every military activity ever undertaken by the United States including the Revolutionary War. I intend to begin adding these, eventually. They all belong here. The nuking of Japan was considered for legality by a distinguished international judicial tribunal, and no violation of law was found. I believe that we should address these allegations - and dismiss them as unfounded by citing the international judicial tribunal. Do we have consensus for this? Raggz (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
We can (and should) certainly include the international tribunal's conclusion about the bombing, so long as we have a source of course. We cannot dismiss the allegations as unfounded--we should merely report the varying views as dictated by our NPOV policy. I would also note that if you want to include allegations "for every military activity ever undertaken by the United States" you are going to have to have reliable sources which actually accuse the US of state terrorism in each and every action. That seems highly unlikely to me. I'm not aware of anyone who refers to colonist actions during the Revolutionary War as "state terrorism" (for one thing, technically speaking, there was not even a "state" yet). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to get a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is rich in alternative history. In adition to documenting the British WMD attack upon the colonists, I believe that it documents that the Revolutionary War was state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read OJ Simpson. There was a legally binding determination of guilt made. Millions of people have written that it was the wrong decision. Does that article attain NPOV by mentioning the verdict and then retrying the case giving 50% of the space to arguing that the court was wrong? Does OJ Simpson outline all of the charges in great detail? No, the trial is over, the verdict is in. Should there be a debate in an encyclopedia about alleged state terorism by the United States in regard to any issue AFTER a valid international legal tribunal makes a finding? Raggz (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, I don't understand what exactly you are trying to do but how is another article supposed to dictate how this particular article should be written? It is not even the case that the two are related in any significant way or that the OJ Simpson article is considered the epitome of how an article should be written. --Ubardak (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing how to apply the NPOV policy. OJ Simpson is an example of how to handle a controversy that has been decided legally. NPOV does not mean a huge debate with the outlining of arguments, but a summarization of the facts. A legal decision is a fact. An argument is not a fact. Hiroshima was legally settled. That should be mentioned, and not very much is really relevant, is it? Raggz (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I was not clear enough. What I am saying is that the OJ Simpson may be an example of an NPOV debate but how it was solved does not necessarily reflect on how this debate should be solved. A legal decision is of course a fact but it is not the only fact. It only stands for what it is and it should be stated as what it is. IMHO this does not mean that any opposing view should be scrapped. --Ubardak (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to offer an article that has debated the results of a legal decision AFTER it was made? I do not really have a clear vision of how you suggest that NPOV is attained by debating after the verdict? I disagree that debating a decison is generally a good approach within an encyclopedia. An example of an article that does this and makes it work would be very helpful. Raggz (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, this is not what I am saying at all. I am not suggesting debating the results of a legal decision. I am suggesting giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision. This has nothing to do with debating the results of a decision but rather with debating the events that preceded the legal proceedings. --Ubardak (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement with Ubardak's thinking on the OJ thing, which seems altogether not analogous to what we are discussing here. I have read Zinn's People's History and indeed assign a couple of chapters as suggested reading when I teach a US history survey course (it's a cool book and in line with my politics, but certainly not at all up to snuff in terms of the best historical scholarship). He is quite critical of certain aspects of the American Revolutionary War effort and is particularly attentive to issues of class, race, and gender. I don't, however, recall where he "documents that the Revolutionary War was state terrorism." Raggz if you find the pages where he does this I think a section along those lines would be warranted. Please provide those page numbers here.

I look forward to returning the conversation to the topic of "The entire section about Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be removed" and related issues, which is the name of the thread. I'd offered a source on this issue, and just noticed Giovanni responded to that, so maybe we can get back to that soon.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am suggesting giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision. This has nothing to do with debating the results of a decision but rather with debating the events that preceded the legal proceedings." We need probably need to move to arbitration next? My view of an encyclopedia does not included offering a voice to anyone. I rspect your honest and articulate summary of your position. Should we move to arbitration, or is there another means to pursue consensus? Raggz (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Ubardak) I think you mean mediation. Arbitration is a big nasty step, that I don't think anyone wants. See WP:ARBCOM. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of an encyclopedia article is that it has NPOV which, again in my opinion, would dictate listening to both sides. By "giving a voice" I simply meant this. I did not mean biasing or editorializing. I doubt we are the only people who would be interested in a consensus on this matter and I am very new to this particular discussion so I would rather not comment on the need for quickly moving to arbitration. --Ubardak (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The point Raggz is trying to make is that if you list something that was beyond a doubt considered a legal act of war at the time (regardless of morality), then you open up a huge can of worms since folks could use it to add any military operation ever performed by the US that someone doesn't like to the article. The line on genocide definitely needs to be removed from that section as it is plain idiotic: by what criteria could it be considered genocide? It was at no time an objective of the US military to obliterate the Japanese people, and in fact, the strategic bombings of various cities caused far more casualities than the nuclear devices did.

As a matter of fact, I'm removing that line right now. Jtrainor (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Arbitration is a big nasty step, that I don't think anyone wants." Thank you, but I do not consider any part of the dispute resolution process to include any "big nasty steps". That would imply a personal conflict that does not exist. Ubardak and I are editors engaged in a collegial debate about what an encyclopedia is about. He supports "giving a voice to people who may not agree with the decision" of the legal tribunal. I respect Ubardak's approach, and I respect those who hold this view. We however appear to have reached an impasse, and I have too much respect for him to believe that he will modify his view on this only because our perspectives differ. The dispute resolution process is how we resolve such conflicts? There is nothing personal implied or intended. I may be mistaken about what the point of the article is? If so, you will notice that I will take that and there will be no further issues from me on that. If instead, I engage Ubardak and challenge his personal view, confront him, this would be unproductive and might be taken personally. Mediation would be my choice if the other editor and I had difficulty communicating effectively. This is not the case, Ubarek communicates exceptionally well and I believe that we understand each other. So Silly rabbit and Ubarek (or anyone), what advice do you have for resolving our dispute about this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Was WWII state terrorisim by the US? I propose a new section that examines this allegation. For the Japanese section many of the issues we will need include are at: http://hnn.us/articles/13989.html I am inclined against my own proposal and prefer to drop WWII entirely. Since there are allegations involving WWII we can get into WWII if we really want to. I could be persuded either way, but it will be a LOT of work to write that section. Raggz (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm open for adding in any material that is germane to the topic and from reliable sources. What do you have specifically? Please quote and give source. Then we can consider adding it. Thanks. Btw, I read Zinn's book in High School, and then again years later, and I do not recall him making claims that the American Revolutionary War was state terrorism. I think you have a tendency to play fast and lose with what the sources actually say, and instead substitute your own SYN interpretation, which often times is simply completely inaccurate.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
THAT is the type of statement that can really slow the work to build consensus, claiming that another editor lacks integrity. I'm sure that my statement was properly qualified, because I am trying to recall the source and I only think it was that one. Now that you have attacked my integrity I think it fair to ask you to check and see if I made an unfair claim. I am certain that he got into the use of biological warfare. Once you check and apologize, I will forget that you ever said that. In the end it was good to get that out, because it now can be resolved and we can perhaps develop a bit more trust? So, what did I clim about Zinn? Raggz (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not questioning your integrity, only the veracity of your statements, which I assumed you to be honestly mistaken, and perhaps a result of the memory issues you attribute your forgetfulness to. For all I know that is true--you get it wrong simply because you don't recall correctly. I merely point out that fact without making any personal judgments about your character (which is not relevant here). Also, since you are making the claim, you have the burden to support that claim by quoting the source. Please don't leave it up to your memory. My memory tells me Zinn said no such thing, and I don't have problems with my memory (although I could be wrong). But since you want to add the claim, please look it up and provide a support for that which you want to add. That is the fair standard to apply. My other comment was that even when you do have a source and read the source, what you often do is apply your own rather unique interpretation and conclusion so what the source is actually saying, and I have (as well as other editors) found that to be not accurate. Again, this is only an observation, with no implications as to why this is occurring. This is why I recommend you quote the source so we can all agree it is saying what you think its saying. I hope this makes sense. I also will note that you sidestepped and ignored my main point. You allege that there is an allegation that all of WW11 was State Terrorism--yet you failed to show one source that makes such a claim. Before we talking about adding such a section, we need to see lots of good sources (like we have for the Japan section). I've reviewed the literature and do not believe this allegation to exist as it was blur any distinction between war and terrorism (which is just one tactic used in warfare). We are interested in these tactics used by States, in particular the US--not an entire war.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think taking a step back and trying to see if the whole WWII was state terrorism would be counterproductive to handling the issue at hand. Furthermore, I believe it has the danger of pushing us to false reasoning by saying "WWII was not state terrorism and therefore each individual part (i.e. any individual act) of WWII was not state terrorism either.". I think we should not dilute the issue at hand and try to agree on whether or not we need to include statements on both the tribunal outcome and how there are indeed people who believe using weapons of mass destruction indiscriminantly on civilian populations constitutes state terrorism. --Ubardak (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MORAL AUTHORITY BernardL just reverted text citing morality as an issue for state terrorism, correctly asserting that what is legal may not be moral. (I assume that a reliable source for this would be found.) Every article has a natural scope. Do we want to expand into moral authority? This would be fun and interesting, particularly the nexus between religion and morality. I am inclined to oppose BernardL's idea. We do not have a reliable source for moral authority to condem legal acts as terrorism? It might be beyond the natural limits of the article. Raggz (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a different section right? :) --Ubardak (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You've raised this issue elsewhere, and below, so I'll repeat my suggestion here. I suggest you let the available sources on the issue (claims of state terrorism committed by the US) guide our content for this article, as well as the discussion. This is a practical because we are delimited by those constraints for building this encyclopedic article. Simply provide a reliable source and quotes its content, and then suggest how to add its information to the article. If there is some reliable source that talks about objections to violence perpetrated by the US against others on the basis of a morality despite its alleged legality (at the time), or any objection on any other basis--provided it calls it State Terrorism and its by the US---then it may be quite suitable to mention that. This is ofcourse provided its a reliable source, and we review what the source says, and have consensus about how to represent it in the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This makes sense.
  • There will be discussion about this in the section's opening sentence, so the Reader would immediately know the context.
  • There would need be good links
  • the definitions section would need to be updated to conform with those used within the article.
It seems important to me to address important allegations, regardless of our views, and this is a perfect example. The
Key for this section seems to be:
  • Immediately make it clear that there was an international legal tribunal.
  • What it did or did not find.
  • Then move to a section titled Immorality and State Terrorism, (or some better title).
This is an important allegation. It should be addressed. The article should offer the lagal and moral context, offer links and cites to the articles where this gets detailed attention, and be short. WP does not need multiple articles on this, but it clearly relates. I endorse Giovanni33's proposal. Raggz (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand my proposal as it differs from what your talking about--unless what you are proposing is supported by sources that talk in such terms (morality, legal tribunal, etc concerning US state terrorism?). Do you have them? Also, I'd like to see the sources you have about the "international legal tribunal," and what it says on the subject. I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm. Also, there is this international peoples legal tribunal that was held on the atomic bombings that found the US guilty of a war crime in its use: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1155010108.shtml (although this tribunal was without real authority). However the ICC ruling is with full legal authority. The World Court ruled with a formal opinion on the legality of use of nuclear weapons, which to my knowledge was the first time (this is not just UN resolutions such as [3] either. The United Nations GA asked the Court for an advisory legal opinion, and they delivered one, settling many questions of law, after taking two years to look at the question. Thus we have the world's pre-eminent judicial authority that considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it came to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal--although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws." Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. By this standard they were illegal then, as they are illegal now. Now I mention this not because I think the questions of legality are appropriate for this article. The concept of State Terrorism is a different issue not one constrained by legal questions or by War Crimes. They are related but not the same thing. I'd like to stick to the subject of this article and not stray off topic. That is why I proposed that we use the sources we find on the subject to guide us for content on the article, and persuade me that its appropriate. Think about our job is simply finding sources and reporting them here, in a cogent manner.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BernardL posted elsewhere: "For example, you keep mentioning there was a verdict from an international legal tribunal, "that rendered a verdict on this topic" of the atomic bombings of Japan. Can you please give me a source for this claim? I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm.".

I have no problem with discussing the International Court of Justice issuing an advisory and non-binding opinion on this subject as long as we are honest enough to explain that the decision is advisory and non-binding. In fact, I think the finding is an important fact. The purpose of the ICJ is to assist the UN Security Council with such legal matters. This opinion advised the UNSC on this issue, so the discussion needs to cover the decision of the UNSC on this recomendation. Raggz (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to update the definitions section to explain that we include actions that are entirely legal by international law - but in the opinion of some violated morality. Then we need to make certain that the Reader knows that we are discussing moral offenses rather than legal offenses.
The role of the ICJ in regard to the interpretation of the UN Charter by Article 39 is zilch. Only the UNSC could make this finding. The ICJ can make a recommendation to the UNSC. Under article 51, any nation may nuke any other, if attacked. The US was attacked. There was no UN then, anyway, laws may not be retroactive, so unless we agree (1) to immorality in the definitions and (2) ensure that the Reader is not mislead in regard to international law - fine. Raggz (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. By this standard they were illegal then, as they are illegal now. " If this were actually true, this would be correct. It is however, not true. It could say "Thus the Court sent an opinion to the UN Security Council that nuclear weapons are illegal ...". May we agree to be accurate on this? Raggz (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


For a court to "render an opinion" is for a court to "give a ruling", or "rule" (for short). In this case these are synonyms for the same activity. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuban issues and SYN polcy violations

  • The covert 1848 and 1851 US invasions of Cuba are possible examples of State terrorism by the United States.
  • The new text offers the Reader a necessary context: The begining of a chain of events that led to the Cold War issues that are raised in the section. Still missing is the fact that Cuba articulated a well known threat to deploy and use weapons of mass destruction against the US. The article does not offer the context that the US was then under a real threat of nuclear destruction.
  • One of my primary prior criticisms is that the Cuban material lacks even one reliable source connecting the US to Cuba following the Bay of Pigs. I now have done the research to resolve this, have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees. By deleting this reference, you reverted the entire Cuban section back a synthesis policy violation again. We had sources that there was terrorism by Cuban refugees. None of these sources are relevant to THIS article without a reliable source linking them to the US. Now we have this source - but you deleted it. Why? Use the TALK page before reverting to build consensus FIRST, please. Raggz (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Point by point: 1), Technically that's possible, but we would need a source that says that, otherwise it's irrelevant. Of course the US did not actually "invade" Cuba in 1848, though many slaveholders did want to acquire it via means fair or foul. 2) We cannot give an entire history here, merely context which is pertinent to any state terrorism allegations. If part of the justification for "state terrorism" against Cuba by the US was that Cuba posed a nuclear threat (although this was only during a brief period) then I think we could include that so long as it was sourced. I don't know what specifically you have in mind. 3) I don't know what source you are referring to and perhaps you have already added it back in (if so please put a link to the diff of your edit here if possible). I already explained to you on your talk page why all of your edits were reverted and acknowledged that some good stuff may have been reverted as well. If you would have discussed here first and used edit summaries this probably would not have happened, but when you make a boatload of new changes (largely adding irrelevant material, at least in my opinion) to a controversial article without discussing first, your edits will often get reverted in full. You seem to be making more limited edits in your last few changes (and usually using edit summaries) which is good. Others can review those, but controversial stuff (be they deletions, additions, or significant changes) should still be discussed on talk first. This goes for all parties obviously.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1), Technically that's possible, but we would need a source that says that, otherwise it's irrelevant. Of course the US did not actually "invade" Cuba in 1848, though many slaveholders did want to acquire it via means fair or foul. The US then used a covert force, we have a good source for this. It has striking parallels to the Bay of Pigs. Perhaps it could be shortened?
2) ... If part of the justification for "state terrorism" against Cuba by the US was that Cuba posed a nuclear threat (although this was only during a brief period) then I think we could include that so long as it was sourced. I don't know what specifically you have in mind. The entire justification for the Cuban invasion is about the Cold War, and these acts were intended as acts of war, a covert war - (which was typical of the Cold War). How may these events be understood outside of the Cold War context? It was another era, and understanding that era is important to understanding the covert CIA war. Cuba (and Berlin) were the central battlegrounds of the Cold War. We are discussing the Cold War exclusively in regard to Cuba.
3) I don't know what source you are referring to and perhaps you have already added it back in (if so please put a link to the diff of your edit here if possible). I'm not sure what source we are discussing? I've tried to make diffs, but cannot find "radio buttons".
4. The Cuban Media is not only state-owned, Cuba has frequently declared that there is no freedom of the press. It therefore cannot be compared to the BBC or the Canadian Brodcasting Corporation. It is a primary source and subject to primary source reporting? Cuba is/was a party to an 18 billion dollar suit against the US. Granma and Radio Havana are also plantiffs in that lawsuit because they ARE the government of Cuba. Cuba has no journalists. When Cuba (as a plantiff) makes "extraordinary claims" that meet policy requirements to be deemed not reliable, may we also agree to this? Raggz (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1) What part of the US government ordered a covert force into Cuba in 1848? I don't think the article deals with the Bay of Pigs invasion as state terrorism, so why is any of this relevant? 2) I still don't know what you are talking about specifically--could you please reference the addition you have/want to made. Your original point was about the thread of nukes from Cuba, which was very brief. I don't know what you are talking about now. 3) Raggz, this keeps happening. You bring something up, someone asks you to explain further, and then you "I don't know what we are discussing." How can one reply to this? In your first comment in this thread you said you "have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees." I'm asking you what this source is. 4) There is very little freedom of the press in Cuba, true, but Granma is in general a valid source by Wikipedia rules for reasons that have been articulated very fully above. I don't agree with your points.
I thought you had only made minor changes to the article but realized you added everything (or most everything) back in which you had added before. I'll leave it for someone else (for now) to see what they think should stay and what should go since you still did not have any discussion on talk before re-adding this material.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with BTP)--Raggz, you have not shown there to be a SYN violation, yet. I have to see this. Also, you added in (and took out), lots of information, and the main problem is that all this was done without getting any consensus for making these major changes on the talk page first. Lastly, I disagree with adding in all the background/historical information about Cuba. It belongs on another article, and this article should not get too off the subject when dealing with claims of US state terror against Cuba--unless there is a good source that connects those historical facts to US state terrorism against Cuba. But the source should mention the cause and effect. I only see you talking about the history of Cuba--giving each historical point its own section even. Lets get consensus for these major changes first before you put them in the article. So, I'll have to revert you back to BigtimePeace. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There is not one reliable source (except the ineligible source from the media owned by the Cuban Government) for any state terrorism against Cuba. Please identify a reliable source. I might have missed it. There are many sources that claim many things but none for state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am quite interested in consensus. Everything added or subtracted may be debated. Giovanni33 did not adres the questions I asked (above) about the Cold War context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct there is not just one reliable source, there are many reliable source which have already been given to you and outlined by other editors numerous times.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you possibly being serious? I gave you reliable sources from two peer reviewed journals- one from Jorge I. Dominguez, professor at Harvard. Also, from some time ago (which you apparently ignored), from the head of the National Lawyers Guild, Leonard Weinglass. There are many indeed. It is really unfathomable at this stage that you can possibly pretend to claim there is not one reliable source alleging state terrorism by the US against Cuba. And regarding your point number four, several reliable scholars have used Granma as a source for their positive claims; and if reliable scholars use Granma as a source why should not us mere editors use it too? (I will provide examples of scholars using granma in the next 2 days). BernardL (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes BernardL, I am serious. My efforts are done in good faith. Might I be mistaken? Yes that is always possible. I believe that I have read every citation. The only citations that allege state terrorism are for US immigration/extradition policy, for not extraditing Cuban refugees who apparently are terrorists and many worked for the covert CIA war against Cuba. Everyone presumes that CANF has a US connection, but there are no reliable sources. I find nothing by Jorge I. Dominguez. Nothing by Leonard Weinglass. Where do I look besides the article?
You might read WP:REDFLAG. I am no expert on policy. When a source is challenged (which admittedly is done subjectively), need there then be a "mainstream media" echo? If the "mainstream media" does not echo what Granma says, it does NOT go into WP. Find an echo, no problem, it qualifies and we use it. Simple enough? If not, complain to Jimbo Wales. User:Jimbo Wales. This WP policy does not apply to journals where original research is not banned, but is encouraged. The Cuban media readily admits to not having any degree of press freedom and are direct voices of that government. I believe that they qualify as a "primary source", as would the US State Department. There are WP rules for primary sources, but I forget what they are. Granma is a reliable primary source, no need to prove this. It however does not employ journalists, Castro has said this and also said that it has no freedom of the press whatever. Resolve the issue, refute the challenge, you only need find a "mainstream media" echo. Do it the easy way. Find a reliable "mainstream media" echo for state terrorism.
Perhaps reliable scholars are not always held to WP policy, might that be an answer to your question? This answer is off topic anyway, the real question is the WP:REDFLAG policy. We don't need to approve it, nor debate it. We just need to follow it. Raggz (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are (again, and again, and again) misapplying your favorite redflag policy. I've explained the policy (as I read it) many times (literally, I think, five or six) and you have never engaged with those explanations, instead choosing to wave WP:REDFLAG in front of us like some kind of, well, redflag! Unsurprisingly you are using it incorrectly again. You claim to be "no expert on policy" yet you constantly invoke policy (particularly "redflag") while ignoring other editors who tell you that you are misapplying policy. This is a not good way to achieve the consensus that you say is so important to you. And if you do not remember our previous discussions on the redflag policy, please look back at some of the previous threads (all of which, I think, you started). Note that I am commenting right here only on your continued invocation of WP:REDFLAG (and not the particulars of the Cuba section, in part cause I already said some stuff about that) because I think it is unbelievably problematic. Unfortunately you continually refuse to discuss it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I pay close attention to your views of policy, and regret that you have had to repeat yourself. I have some memory loss due to combat-relatd traumatic brain injuries, and as a result, I no longer work. Perhaps this is why this happened? I do not recall anything of substance as your reply, except that I recall that you cited a larger policy, and by that policy claimed to have invalidated my application of WP:REDFLAG. I didn't really understand your logic, and so never accepted it. My key and still unanswered question is why not just use a "mainstream echo" which would deny this challenge? Without a simple answer, I may not understand your theory. I am open to persuasion, but may have missed why (1) I may not challenge an "extraorinary claim) and (2) why it is not necessary to offer a "mainstream echo" when an "extraordinary claim" is challenged? I am trying to understand. Raggz (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have read my views on Wiki policy closely (not that they are so important!) and have done the same for you I assure you. You have several times now mentioned the fact that you have sustained some brain injuries and that there may have been some associated memory loss, and this is something I have thought about repeatedly since first interacting with you. Personally I cannot imagine experiencing something like that, and I marvel at your ability to go through that kind of trauma and come through it to the point that you are willing and able to devote your time here to the encyclopedia, of all things. Perhaps--and this is something I have been (and am still) extremely hesitant to mention--the memory issues are part of the problem with our communication troubles and indeed maybe with much of the resistance you are experience on this talk page. If you are willing, send me an e-mail--the "e-mail this user" option is enabled on the left side of my user page--so we can talk further. I think it could be fruitful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To Raggz: since you have mentioned your troubles with memory loss several times as a potential reason that you are unable to follow some of the many many many discussion threads that you are involved in on this and many many many other controversial pages, may I suggest that you start limiting your participation to more managable chunks of content, sticking to one article and limiting the number of discussion threads that you start and participate in for that article. I dont think that even a person who does not suffer from memory loss could maintian reasonable content and context for as many different 'soups' that you are currently making. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
While the current Cuba section contains as sources Fidel Castro (BBC),RICARDO Alarcón (Granma), National Security Archives, Roberto Hernández Caballero (Miami Herald), a Cuban Statement to the U.N., Noam Chomsky, The Washington Post and Peter Kornbluh, I would like to present a sandbox that corroborates the charge, at least in its general form. It is a succession of quotes from about 18 scholars dealing with issues running the gamut, including general allegations of state terrorism, Operation Mongoose, Posada Carrilles, Orlanda Bosch, CANF, and numerous connections with the CIA and government officials, (as well as Jeb Bush). This material is not exhaustive, much more could be added. It is simply the product of an afternoon's work. Here is the link to the sandbox..... ... [[4]] BernardL (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Is discussion moving us toward consensus for the content of this article? If not, why not?

I appreciate your patience. One does not percieve TBI cognitive holes, but runs into them often without noticing. For example: the first time I entered the women's rest room I was annoyed that there was a woman in the men's room. After I bump into a pattern like that I learn to pay close attention to restroom signs, something that required no attention prior. I do not percieve any TBI issues for WP, but such are possible. Although I cannot go back to being a professor, I still enjoy using my mind actively. WP interests me, and I have some time. Don't be shy about discussing the TBI, it is like my eye color, nothing all that personal. There are a great many other new WP editors of like circumstance, WP is a great means for TBI rehabilitation.

It is my highest priority to reach consensus on policy, because my editorial style is to adhere to WP:BOLD WP:OWN, and WP:IAR. You need to be clear if we disagree on policy because I wlll at times edit quite boldly, unless I percieve a policy that limits this. This and the core policies that resonate for me are why I spend time here. WP:CON constrains boldness, as do other policies, but in the end, WP:IAR. You appear to be the "primary editor" for WP policy purposes. There presently is no consensus for prior discussion for every edit on TALK. Consensus has shifted per WP:CON. That said, consensus building requires the development of trust and respect, these require time to develop. Discussion is good, but to this point little or no progress is being made toward consensus despite much discussion. Consensus however is not a requirement for the challenge of text that does not comply with WP policy. Although I expect to challenge some content, I do not expect to challenge editors, and I expect to build the trust and communication that is necessary for the collegial development of WP:CON. Is our discussion moving us toward consensus for the content of this article? If not, why not?

  • Apart from the government of Cuba, is there a reliable source for anything in the Cuba material being state terrorism, or is the entire section a SYN policy violation?
  • I am disatisfied with ALL of the Cuban material and suggest stepping back and taking the broad view. Does it ALL belong in the Cold War article? If not, the Cold War context is critical to this article, presently it offers an entirely invalid thesis that the US arbitrarily decided to invade Cuba without any compelling cause. If there is no consensus for removal, then in my view there needs to be a major Cold War inclusion for context. Raggz (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to inclusion of Castro's actual invasions of the Dominecan Republic and Hati? What about his plan to invade the US (Puerto Rico) and overthrow the US government and annex US teritory to Cuba? These, and the Soviet threat to use Cuba to launch a full scale thermonuclear attack on the US were properly concerns of the US in the era being discussed. Operation Northwoods was a classic Cold War planning exercise, and we need the Cold War context for this material. Raggz (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object because it's off topic--unless you have a source that states that the US actions that are accused of state terrorism against Cuba, was in response to any of these actions you accuse Cuba of. If the source says that, and its reliable, then we can include it. Maybe in the "Opposition/Response" section, which is the official US response? But lets look at the sources and what they say first.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There are many excellent sources about Cuba and the Cold War. A "Opposition/Response" section implies two factions debating, and I am not in favor of having two factions of editors. I propose to follow WP:CON. I favor adding the Cold War context necessary to expand the context.
Look at Boston Tea Party's Background Section. Without this, would the Reader understand? This was arguablly terrorism, (there probably is a source). If we only tell the reader "The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks on ships in Boston Harbor", this totally lacks context.
Our article totally ignores the Cold War context and states: "Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba on many occasions.[19][20][21] According to Ricardo Alarcón, President of Cuba’s national assembly "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century.”[22]"
  • Is it relevant that Americans were digging bomb shelters in their backyards because of Cuba, that Cuba had invaded her neighbors three times the year prior and publically threatened to invade the US (Puerto Rico)?
  • Is it contextually important to explain why half a million Cubans fled Cuba, why they were invading Cuba with or without US help? The answer is that the Revolution was nearly universally supported, but when it turned Stalinist, when those who had fought for the Revolution were jailed and executed, when all human rights were suspended, they fled, and were very angry. The article implies that they were working for the US when they were actually Cuban nationals who had lived in Cuba that year, and were attacking from the US. Does the Reader deserve this context, like the BACKGROUND in Boston Tea Party offers context? Raggz (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason this article does not go into the motivations for why the U.S. acted as it did is because it is entirely irrelevant to the category of law we are dealing with; to adapt your favorite example -- the O.J. Simpson case -- your insistence upon including historical context to these claims would be as if O.J. admitted to the crime and then tried to bring forward a history of his relationship with Nicole to persuade the Judge that he should be let go. Except that's not the way the law works; O.J. was being tried for murder. If he admits to that murder then that's the end of the story; he did it, now he's sentenced. Providing background about why the U.S. has paid people to blow up airliners over the Carribbean, or poison the Cuban water supply, or given protection and organizational recognition to organizations that admit to the routine use of terrorism is beside the point. If the U.S. gave aid, support, or protection to a group of people who admit to blowing up an airliner full of innocent people then the U.S. is, according to its own standards, guilty of State Terror. End of story.
Once again: i am sympathetic to your protestations. But i will remind you, once again, that this article is at an impasse first and foremost because there are many people who would like to see it deleted and who are unwilling to contribute any information to the page subject. If you are interested in balancing out the article then i urge you to create a sandbox and show us what your ideas are. Both i and Bigtimepeace have indicated on several occasions that we are open to a massive re-working of the page content. Unfortunately, your only response has been to chalenge sources that have already been examined, and re-examined, repeatedly passing the challenges. Why don't you just make that sandbox and start showing us what your ideas are? Stone put to sky (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Providing background about why the U.S. has paid people to blow up airliners over the Carribbean, or poison the Cuban water supply, or given protection and organizational recognition to organizations that admit to the routine use of terrorism is beside the point. If the U.S. gave aid, support, or protection to a group of people who admit to blowing up an airliner full of innocent people then the U.S. is, according to its own standards, guilty of State Terror. End of story." Fine. Why not just post a reliable source for any of this then? There is no need for a reliable source for the Cold War claims, except that we need a source that the Cold War was state terrorism. You can find sources for all of your claims, but none that the US was involved (except for the Cold War stuff). If the US blew up an airliner, we agree. If you don't have a source, we do not.
I do not know how to create a sandbox and lack the time to try for a while. Raggz (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should go find something more appropriate to your interests, because until you can contribute something to the page i don't think you will be taken very seriously, here. Do you have any hobbies? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the instructions for creating a 'sandbox' [5] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Philippines' Sandbox and Raggz' objections

Finally, E. San Juan Jr, Ronald Simbulan, the AHRC and the PPT are all legitimate scholarly sources. While their evidence and claims have not been presented by the U.S. mainstream media, the claims and evidence they give voice to are considered unremarkably commonplace in the Philippines and S.E.Asia. I would suggest that the burden of evidence is not on us to demonstrate that the claims of these people are not mainstream but is in fact upon you to show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Philippine geographic and cultural sphere.

As it is, all of the claims made by these people are -- as the passage shows -- clearly based in a literal interpretation of International legal defitions, while the evidence upon which these claims are based are widely acknowledged by the United States itself, as well as by many formal government commissions created by European nations. With such admissions regarding the evidence, the undisputed academic credentials of the sources, and the use of these sources by newspapers and human rights publications both inside the Philippines as well as out, it seems to me that it is your claims that these sources cannot be used that is truly the extraordinary assertion being made here. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sky, you can't prove a negative. Although I would suggest there is no particular onus on any party to show any comments are "true" or "false", it should be quite possible for you to demonstrate the use of their research by mainstream groups in the international world.
For example, is their work picked up by Amnesty International? Also, what are their academic qualifications/positions, etc? John Smith's (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I did not ask anyone to "prove a negative". I asked someone to prove a positive: explain, precisely, how these sources fail the notability requirement. The notability requirement is a clear standard that is unambiguously defined. In regard to this standard sources either pass or fail; that is utterly antithetical to "proving a negative", which would be to, say, prove that someone is not a flibbertigep. Without knowing what a "fibbertigep" is there is no way to disprove it. In this instance, however, we are quite clear on what a reliable source is.

Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored). Thus Raggz' own definition -- that mention must be made by mainstream U.S. media sources -- is patently inapplicable. That there is a government of the Philippines no one doubts. That there is a nation of millions of Filipinos, no one doubts. But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion.

Now, regarding your suggestion that someone back up the qualifications of these sources, my suggestion is that Raggz can google as well as i can. Roland Simbulan is a 20 year professor and Regent of the University of the Philippines and the author of two books, editor of a publication specializing in "Philippine Sovreignty issues,Philippine-U.S. relations, Philippine foreign policy, defense & security issues and the impact of globalization policies on the Filipino people" and finally author of the book "Struggle for an Independent Philippine Foreign Policy". Thus, he is clearly an academic who is actively engaged in research and publication about the issue in question.

Fr. Shay Cullen has been thrice nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, is founder of the large and well respected PREDA human rights organization, has received numerous human rights awards from foreign governments, has testified before the U.S. Congress, the Philippine Senate, is a syndicated columnist in major Philippine media, as well as having been an active force in helping uncover human rights abuses by local U.S. military bases and the conversion of those installations to civilian use.

Those are two that i have googled. It took me five minutes to find the sources and twenty minutes to respond to your challenge. Now it's your turn. Feel free to debate it here -- i welcome your challenges, but remind you that the onus is not upon me to do all the work myself. This is a social effort, and if you really do object to the material then it should be a small thing for you to present alternative sources or unambiguous evidence that disprove the current sources, to show that their presentation of the facts is somehow inaccurate, inadequate, or irrelevant. If you cannot, then i would suggest that the problem here is not with the presented research but, instead, with your objections. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "fibbertigep" analogy is amusing, but you can know the content of the request and yet still be required to prove a negative.
You demanded that he/others show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Philippine geographic and cultural sphere. Now you've said that the point is to prove a positive: explain, precisely, how these sources fail the notability requirement. "Proof" is impossible because whether sources pass/fail notability is a point of opinion - there is no independent committee who can say "we decree the following sources is notable/not notable". So I suggest you drop the demands for proof, and phrase it as a request.
Also in regards to the notability policy, I see no part of it that puts the onus on someone to disprove notability.
But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion. What about the major European newspapers, independent organisations like Amnesty International, etc? They're all for exposing human rights issues around the world. Unless one is a crackpot who believes in a global conspiracy controlling the media, it's fair to say the matter would be brought up in countries that have a good degree of media freedom by credible publications.
Fr. Shay Cullen has ...received numerous human rights awards from foreign governments Which ones? His website doesn't go into specifics.
i welcome your challenges.... I'm not here to argue one position or another. I'm merely trying to get you to substantiate some of your points because it helps others understand. Unless you're hoping Raggz will get bored or be banned (neither seems likely at this point), it is good to explain your position clearly and concisely. If one says "you must prove X" and another replies "I have to prove nothing - you need to prove Y" then nothing is resolved, is it? Generally speaking the person that wishes to assert a point/support a piece of text has to back it up, show how it complies with the appropriate rules and guidelines, etc.
If you cannot, then i would suggest that the problem here is not with the presented research but, instead, with your objections. I think you could do with assuming good faith a bit more, rather than assuming anyone who raises a point that could be taken as criticism is opposed to your position. Dividing the community into "with me" or "against me" isn't helpful. John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it seems as if i'm assuming that; perhaps i was a bit brusque, but i held no presumption about your motives. I just feel a bit put upon by the mass of objections being tabled here by Raggz. I don't mind helping out to defend these sources, but you might be surprised to find that the answers to all of these questions were already supplied on this page back about eight months ago. They were ignored, at that time, and since it was i who posted them -- only to see them ignored -- i feel a bit reluctant to spend time searching them down at the behest of someone who cannot be bothered to contribute any material to the page. I'm not trying to spark anyone's anger here -- certainly not yours -- but the discussion of whether or not these sources are reliable really should be well beyond the "Who are these people?" stage. When working up this material i picked over the quite numerous mentions of the current Philippine-US situation to focus on a few respected academics and human rights workers. The information being asked for isn't still fresh on my mind, and having already presented it once i just don't really understand why the onus is upon me, alone, to do so again.
(Having just said that, i'd like to thank the others here for chipping in -- it's a big reassurance) Stone put to sky (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, i've included statistics and comments taken from fact-finding missions undertaken by the Belgian and Dutch governments, Amnesty International, AHRC and several other public human rights groups. Those should pass reliability tests as well as anything, no? So really, the issue we are most concerned with at the moment is whether or not Prof's R. Simbulan and E. San Juan, Fr. Cullen, the PPT-P, and the labor organizations quoted herein qualify as reliable or not. Prof. E. San Juan and the PPTP i dealt with above. Fr. Cullen and R. Simbulan i just provided for -- to my mind adequately -- but since some here are still in doubt i will direct them to this page: PREDA_Foundation. It clearly links to two awards by European governments -- Germany and Switzerland -- documenting that Fr. Cullen and his organization work closely with both International Legal Tribunals INTERPOL and the U.N, and also that Fr. Cullen has, in recognition of his work, been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by international organizations who have no direct contact with his group or his work.
I hope that is enough, but if it is not then of course, please give voice to your reservations. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion focused on the sources. Stone has provided specific evidence and arguments for why a couple of people being used as sources are reliable for our purposes in response to a challenge offered by Raggz. Others are welcome to disagree and I'm not even taking a position at this point. However those who disagree would need to provide a specific rationale for why these sources are unacceptable, just as Stone has offered a rationale for why two particular sources are acceptable. The burden of proof for adding a new source is with the adder, but Stone (who may or may not have added the sources in the first place) has now offered specific arguments for keeping a couple of sources and anyone objecting should offer specific arguments in reply. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about.
Let me also note (and this amounts to another way of discussing Raggz's misuse, as I see it, of WP:REDFLAG) that the title of this article is indeed "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States." As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media). In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on The Guardian web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It also seems to be possibly verging on discrimination to hold up Western mainstream institutions as setting the authoritative standard which the rest (ie: majority) of the world must somehow measure up, or be rejected. The Asia Human Rights Commission is eminently credible. It was founded and has it's headquarters in Hong Kong. It has chapters in more than a dozen Asian countries, and has been doing its work since 1995. It is a well respected human rights organization and has collaborated with Human Rights Watch several times. For what it's worth, The Permanent People's Tribunal is international. It was founded in Italy and is the official successor to the Bertrand Russell tribunals I and II They have organized tribunals in many countries. E. San Juan Jr. is arguably the most internationally known Filipino intellectual, Fulbright professor of American Studies,etc, etc.. He has published over a dozen books, many with internationally recognized academic publishers such as Palgrave, and Rowan & Littlefield. Why are we hashing through this yet again when the credentials for these people and groups were already documented three weeks ago? Raggz is flailing and it's becoming a sad waste of a lot of people's valuable time. Just look at his first objection. It concerns the article by E. San Juan Jr called "Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization." Raggz asked, Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? Perhaps the title itself might suggest that San Juan thinks the U.S. is significantly complicit in "Arroyo state terrorism"? Not convinced? Ok, then how about reading the sub-section called U.S. Patronage? Or how about considering one of his concluding observations: "In effect, Arroyo state terrorism is designed to 1) insure regime survival and reproduction of its personnel; 2) protect the privileges of the elite and the capital accumulation of a class fraction of the ruling bloc; and 3) promote neoliberal/U.S. hegemonic supremacy in Asia and the world, given its historic dependency on the former colonizers." Raggz makes the same objection to the second article by San Juan Jr. which contains the following explicit claim: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses...Clearly, the Arroyo regime is hell-bent on stifling all legal opposition, if not liquidating physically all dissenters and critics, by State terror." BernardL (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
BernardL, I admire your dedication to human rights (a value that we share), and I admire your fighting spirit. You have articulated a complete lack of respect for my edits, challenged my integrity, and for these reasons alone I am not optomistic that you will ever be willing to work for the consensus necessary to attain NPOV. Raggz (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace - I have been asked and agreed to only edit at the page bottom. Per requests from yourself and redpenofdoom, I will resume as before.
"As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media)." We disagree about what the article is. Your are indirectly echoing the argument by BernardL that our article is primarily to give "Voice" to the oppressed. My primary objective is to create a balanced encyclopedia article (which might include such a voice). I'm not disputing your claim, but am instead pointing out that WP does not have articles about subjects that are not covered by any "mainstream" source. Your claim here implies that this article is untenable because there are no reliable sources? Perhaps as these appear we could then have an article on this topic? Raggz (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that I had made an argument that the purpose of "our article is primarily to give "Voice" to the oppressed." Please point out where exactly I made that argument. BernardL (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on The Guardian web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)" We just disagree. If we were in an academic debate (like that you engage in daily), you would be making a good point. In the WP context, we don't debate the merits of policy here, we implement them. Why not simply offer an echo from a "mainstream media" source for Simbulan's claims? WP REDFLAG policy requires this, and if this is not possible REDFLAG requires that Simbulan be dropped as a source. WP policy is different than it is for academics who focus upon doing original research. When you edit at WP, you need shift from the rules you live by as a professor to the rules of WP. Here is an example where these differ. Raggz (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, please supply the relevant extract from WP:REDFLAG where it says a "mainstream media echo" (or similar wording) is required to back up material sourced to a reliable academic publication, or else that material has to be deleted. You are flat out, 100% wrong here, as everyone is trying to point out to you. But you keep banging on with the same old nonsense. --Nickhh (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the policy:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Shortcut: WP:REDFLAG See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have you just quoted the whole policy and failed to answer the simple question? I have read this policy, as have you. The difference is that you don't understand it. Nowhere does it say that "surprising" claims should be deleted if they are not covered in the mainstream media. It merely says the sources for such a claim should be examined to check that they are reliable - which is a very different thing, especially if the original source proves to be reliable. And this debate is now confusingly spread across this talk page, since you keep getting it wrong and EVERYONE SINGLE OTHER EDITOR has to keep pointing that out to you. --Nickhh (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More of Raggz' Objections (page break for convenience' sake)

  • "E. San Juan Jr, Ronald Simbulan, the AHRC and the PPT are all legitimate scholarly sources." I will take your word for this. "...the claims and evidence they give voice to are considered unremarkably commonplace in the Philippines and S.E.Asia." Again I take your word for this. Neither point you make is relevant to (my understanding of)WP:REDFLAG. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
as has been pointed out to you a number of times, the interpretation of REDFLAG that you seem to insist on using is not actully supported at all by the actual wording of REDFLAGTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "I would suggest that the burden of evidence is not on us to demonstrate that the claims of these people are not mainstream but is in fact upon you to show us that these sources are somehow illegitimate within the context of the Filipino geographic and cultural sphere." The burden of evidence is determined by policies, not just the one I invoke. Which policy do you suggest supports your burden of evidence claim? The standard of review within WP is the WP policy. You may make excellent arguments to change WP policy, but is this the correct forum for that? Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again: it seems to me that it is you who are trying to re-write and re-interpret WP policy and guidelines. The standard for reliable sourcing is not "Popular Western Media Sources", but (in a nutshell) "scholarly research or commentary by competent and respected academics, media sources, or professionals". Under that, Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen and the PPTP all clearly qualify. While it is true that they are not widely read or known in the West, in their home country -- the Philippines -- these sources are either all personally respected and widely known or comprised of individuals who are well-respected or widely known. That is clearly in keeping with WP policy. Thus, i again insist that there seems no substance to your objections. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that we do not agree. Raggz (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "...all of the claims made by these people are -- as the passage shows -- clearly based in a literal interpretation of International legal defitions, while the evidence upon which these claims are based are widely acknowledged by the United States itself..." Fine. Just cite these authorities and the question is resolved. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The citatons are included in the article. You may find them there.Stone put to sky (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored)." Read WP:REDFLAG. This is evidence that this claim is precisely the type of claim that the policy was intended for. This is absolutely untrue, that the Philippine government government exists in some sort of journalistic black hole where interesting and important news is trapped forever. This has really helped our evaluation, we now have a claim for conspiratorial suppression of the Truth. Stone put to sky's contribution does not confirm that these sources fail REDFLAG, but this goes a long way toward this. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. I am not speaking of conspiracies. Neither have i said that the Philippines' government exists in a "black hole". I simply made an observation that Western media coverage of the Philippines' political situation rarely -- if ever -- goes into the sort of detail that this section of the article introduces. Therefore the sources must be taken from other sources; in any event, so long as those sources are reliable then there is absolutely no need to demand commentary from the mainstream U.S. media.
  • If there are no reliable sources then we will need to wait until there are to have this article. Raggz (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the article itself clearly cites the murder of hundreds of Filipino journalists and academics. It backs that assertion up with solid research from several different independent and well-respected commissions (some of them by Dutch and Belgian government officials). So the article itself backs up my statement: information about the internal workings of the Philippines' government is being suppressed. That isn't my assertion; that's the official position of organizations like Amnesty Inernational, the AHRC, and the Dutch and Belgian government fact-finding missions. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This likely is the case, I will take your word for it. Why would this article cover this? Most nations in the world get US aid. The Philippines does as well, and with Al Quaida in the Philippines, US Special Forces are engaged in training their military. Have US troops committed state terrorism? What reliable source claims this? Without this source - why are we discussing the Philippines at all? Raggz (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "... Roland Simbulan is a 20 year professor and Regent of the ..." and he has minor credentials when compared with Henry Kissinger, whom would you believe first? Anyway his credentials are not being challenged. This is not a University tenure meeting. We are discussing REDFLAG. Does this policy disqualify this source? Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, this policy does NOT AT ALL IN ANY WAY disqualify this source. If you wish to find a source where Mr. Kissinger details that it is his belief and interpretation that the US actions noted by Simulan DO NOT constitute terrorism, we can include that as well.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion." We are not discussing that question, but if REDFLAG applies. REDFLAG says "mainstream media". You don't like the policy, then debate it elsewhere. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been informed many times that you are not actually applying REDFLAG, simply your misinterpretation of REDFLAG. Please read the NUMEROUS explanations on this page of how you are incorrectly reading and interpreting REDFLAG.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Now it's your turn. Feel free to debate it here -- i welcome your challenges, but remind you that the onus is not upon me to do all the work myself." I am not challenged these people's credentials, this is not a job interview discussion, it is about WP policy, REDFLAG, and my claim that their work is ineligible by WP policy. I already did my work. I checked for a "mainstream media" echo. This is what you are looking for. I'm not working against you, I'm just trying to implement policy. Let me help you, all you need is one mainstream media echo, and that resolves the challenge. Google away, if you find that, you resolve the question. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You are wrong. It has already been explained to you many, many times about how and why you are wrong. Here is another go at it:
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
Nothing in there says "Mainstream U.S. Media sources." In fact, it clearly states that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made"; thus, demanding a U.S. media source to back up claims made about intricacies of U.S.-Philippine government relations is clearly an artificial -- and inappropriate -- standard.
Next: Wikipedia:REDFLAG Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim. And later: Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.
Now, then: Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen, and the PPTP all clearly qualify as reliable sources (scholarly, academic, published by third parties who use due diligence in fact checking, etc). Their claims are all backed up by unquestionably solid sources: Amnesty International, AHRC, the Asian Times, and various other human rights groups. Thus, they clearly accord with Wikipedia:REDFLAG and qualify as valid, useful content. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant." Why? That is what policy requires us to consider. I suggest that you challenge REDFLAG elsewhere, but engage here and recognize WP policy. Do this, or do it not... Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Because you are wrong. I have quoted the relevant policy guidelines for you. Nowhere does it say that only mainstream U.S. media sources are reliable. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "It also seems to be possibly verging on discrimination to hold up Western mainstream institutions as setting the authoritative standard which the rest (ie: majority) of the world must somehow measure up, or be rejected. The Asia Human Rights Commission is eminently credible." You are making an excellent point. This may point to a major issue, is there a consensus to ignore WP policy because of reasons like this? I think so. In any case, take these debates to the proper forum. Maybe WP really is a discriminatory institution? Here we comply with WP policy. Raggz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we comply with WP policy - but you are not representing policy correctly with respect to WP:REDFLAG. Every time I bring this up you seem to drop out of the discussion Raggz, so let's see what happens here on try number 15 to engage you with on this. Again, REDFLAG is a list of general cases which "should prompt editors to examine (emphasis added) the sources for a given claim." Nowhere does the policy say, "When a redflag is raised, remove the source" yet you continually try to use it this way. Nowhere does it say (as you do above) "all you need is one mainstream media echo, and that resolves the challenge." The phrase "mainstream media echo" does not appear in the REDFLAG policy, right? No, it does not, it is a phrase you have coined and bandy about as though it were policy. There is no Wikipedia policy which requires that surprising claims have a "mainstream media echo." None.
Before continuing with your specific points, please, please, please explain why my interpretation of this policy is incorrect. I've asked you for to do this too many times - please engage with me here on this issue. Explain how REDFLAG has anything to do with deleting sources instead of examining sources carefully (the latter being the actual wording of the policy). We cannot deal with any specific issues until we get past this policy hurdle. If you want to achieve consensus you need to engage on this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We agree. If we resolve the policy issue, we resolve the dispute between us, because we both are working in good faith.
"Let me also note (and this amounts to another way of discussing Raggz's misuse, as I see it, of WP:REDFLAG) that the title of this article is indeed "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States." As those who are keeping score at home might have noted by now, such allegations typically do not appear in mainstream online media, be they American or European media or really any other media for that matter (it's a bit of an esoteric topic, and esoteric topics--think obscure scientific subfields for a useful comparison--are usually discussed little or not at all in mainstream media)."
  • I read the above, and noted that you disagree with WP policy regarding the "mainstream media" in regard to REDFLAG. You keep making two arguments that I keep ignoring as irrelevant. (1) That what is a "remarkable claim" is subjective to some significant degree. Of course this is true, another phrase for this is "does it pass the small test"? We agree, subjectivity is involved. (2) Policy is wrong, the "mainstream media" is irrelevant and Truth is important. I still ignore this argument.

"In the past some have used this point to argue that the entire article should be deleted, but that's not what we're debating here right now (hopefully it won't be for awhile). Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in our policies on verifiability and reliable sources which requires arguments not made in the mainstream media to be backed up by the mainstream media (or by Amnesty International for that matter). It's fine to challenge Simbulan and others as a source, but folks will need a rationale other than "I don't find anything like the stuff he says on The Guardian web site" or "Amnesty International has not done a report on this" - i.e. they'll need a rationale that's actually rooted in our policies about sourcing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)"

Again, I will not debate WP policy here. It says "mainstream media", so I accept it. I understand why you challenge policy and why I ignore your claims. I'm just editing an article to comply with policy. When you change policy, I will edit that way then, but not now. Raggz (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What we are debating is our understanding of the policy. You say you are editing to comply with policy, but I (and others) are saying you are misunderstanding the policy. You are wildly mischaracterizing my argument when you say "Policy is wrong, the "mainstream media" is irrelevant and Truth is important." I have never said anything remotely like that. I am not saying policy is wrong, rather your interpretation of a policy is wrong. But you refuse to discuss policy, so I guess we're stuck. I don't know how you expect to get anywhere when you refuse to discuss what is arguably the main sticking point. I'd ask you to keep open to the possibility that you are misinterpreting policy - you seem to assume that you understand it perfectly even though several other people have suggested that you do not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I sense your frustration, but cannot help you further. I would if I could. I am open to the idea that I misunderstand policy. I was wrong yesterday and may be wrong tomorrow. I believe that what I wrote summarizes your positions. I really do. What does: "Whether or not points made by Roland Simbulan are echoed by mainstream media or Amnesty International is completely irrelevant"
Here is how I process your argument: REDFLAG says that the "mainstream media" matters. REDFLAG is policy. You say that it is not policy. I just ignore what you say. No single rule or criteria is policy. The "mainstream media" is but one rule. You claim that this is not a policy issue, well I just ignore that, sorry. Raggz (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Reposted from above (sorry for the re-post, but in light of your memory issues and tendency to ignore inconvenient responses i felt like it would be best if i called attention to this down here, as well):

Yes. You are misinterpreting it. It has already been explained to you many, many times about how and why you are wrong. Here is another go at it:
From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
Nothing in there says "Mainstream U.S. Media sources." In fact, it clearly states that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made"; thus, demanding a U.S. media source to back up claims made about intricacies of U.S.-Philippine government relations is clearly an artificial -- and inappropriate -- standard.
Next: Wikipedia:REDFLAG Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim. And later: Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.
Now, then: Simbulan, San Juan, Cullen, and the PPTP all clearly qualify as reliable sources (scholarly, academic, published by third parties who use due diligence in fact checking, etc). Their claims are all backed up by unquestionably solid sources: Amnesty International, AHRC, the Asian Times, and various other human rights groups. Thus, they clearly accord with Wikipedia:REDFLAG and qualify as valid, useful content. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" WP:REDFLAG Raggz (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources are reliable experts and academics whose focus is in the given field. Thus, they qualify as "WP:reliable sources" and pass "Redflag" Stone put to sky (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: WP:REDFLAG and its application

What is our understanding of the WP:REDFLAG section of our verifiability policy and to what extent does it apply or not apply to some ongoing debates about sources for this article?

Initial Discussion

I'll try to sum this up as I see it but welcome other characterizations of the argument of course. There has been a fundamental dispute on this page over the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" component of WP:V. User:Raggz has invoked this policy dozens of times to argue that a particular source should be deleted. He argues that if a claim made in a source is "exceptional" as defined by one or more editors (regardless of whether or not the source is reliable by our standards) then there must be what Raggz terms a "mainstream media echo" of the claim in question. For example, Marjorie Cohn made a claim in an article in an academic journal (see this section of the talk page) that US financial support for Israel was "state-supported terrorism." Raggz has asserted that this is an "exceptional" claim which must therefore be "echoed" in the "mainstream media." Since no one has provided a mainstream media source echoing this claim it should be removed.

Several others - certainly including myself - have strongly disagreed. I have argued that Raggz is misreading WP:REDFLAG which involves, as the name suggests, "redflags" for sourcing problems. This section of WP:V does not give carte blanche to remove a source that "raises a red flag." Rather it says that "certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim." The claim that the US supporting Israel is state-supported terrorism may or may not be "exceptional" (personally I would say it's a fairly common claim). But assuming it is exceptional, WP:REDFLAG would dictate that we examine the source carefully. When we see that it is an article in a respected journal by a scholar on the subject, and furthermore the current president of the National Lawyers Guild, we would probably conclude that the source is acceptable. The manner in which Raggz argues we use this section of WP:V (i.e. any source making an exceptional claim that is not "echoed" in the "mainstream media" must be removed) is simply a misreading of policy.

Such is the locus of the dispute as I see it (I use the Cohn/Israel issue merely as an example - I'm not trying to open a discussion on that specific debate). I'd hope we can get some good feedback here from neutral and interested parties. Personally I'd like to keep it focused to the issue of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and how it applies here as we don't want to drag in all of the other issues on this page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The REDFLAG policy means that any editor may make a good faith (and subjective) challenge that a source fails the "smell test". Policy requires (in my opinion) that the source be deleted IF there is no "mainstream media" echo. I have challenged a source that claims that the US/Israeli relationship is a form of state terrorism even though a Nobel Prize was awarded for the Camp David Accords that requires that the US send Israel and Egypt about half of US foreign aid. I claim that the US/Israel relationship has widely been discussed in the media, and that this one voice making an extreme claim that is not echoed by one "mainstream" journalist violates REDFLAG. Why does only one person know or write about this? This is a huge story, if true. I also claim that rather than involve so many others, that the proper strategy was to find a single "mainstream media" source that simply echo's Dr. Cohn's bizarre cklaim. If there was just one echo, I claim that my challenge should fail. If it failed, obviously the text would fail any NPOV test because this single extreme view is not presented in any balanced context like NPOV generally requires. Raggz (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, the other problem I see with your comment above (other than a misunderstanding of the policy) is that you are challenging a claim that this article does not in fact make. Thus, you are creating a straw-man which you proceed to knock down as not passing the smell test. However, no where in this article does it ever claim that, to quote you, "claims that the US/Israeli relationship is a form of state terrorism." You've done things like this several times above, and I've asked you where in the article do these alleged claims exist, and you've always ignored those questions. Why?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the saying: You can dress up a pig however you want, it is still a pig. These editors can dress up there edits and justifications however they want, but underneath it all, it is still deleting and silencing dissent. This is the same tired recycled reasons that editors used before to delete this article.
How about a Arbcom on this article? It is the only thing which will stop this bickering which has gone on for years. Trav (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I really think we should keep the focus on this specific issue if at all possible. Trav if you can weigh in with your understanding of this policy and how it applies here that would be appreciated. I just don't want this to turn into a generalized debate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think while its clear to the many editors on this talk page that Raggz is mis-understanding and mis-applying this policy, it will be helpful to get even more editors--esp. outsiders--to comment as well. Then hopefully, at least this line argument will be put to rest, finally. Sure, I've seen POV editors blank and attack this article before, but I want to assume good faith about what is going on now with the attempts at deleting well sourced material. Hopefully this RfC will clear up this policy misunderstanding.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you implying that I have "blanked" anything - or "attacked" this article? No, you are not, because you could not support this claim. So do not imply it. Raggz (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I said the exact opposite in fact. I was responding to Trav who also knows the history of this article and such actions in the past. In your case, I argued we should assume good faith with your contesting the sourced material and advocating for its removal.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Stone put to sky has supported the REDFLAG claim by asserting today that there is a conspiracy where "the information is largely suppressed". Although this claim is not required to support a REDFLAG challenge, it really helps since REDFLAG specifically suggests that sources that elicit such support are unreliable.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bigtimepeace's interpretation of the policy. Raggz, my main problem with your interpretation is that you make two assumprtions which I do not believe hold - i) Information is available to everyone to comment on and more importantly ii) There is a clear group of "mainstream media". This group does not exist (especially when one considers the whole world not just the US Media) and not everyone gets to see every bit of information around the world to comment on. I agree that verifying the owner of the claim, as pointed by Bigtimepeace, is what the policy calls for. --Ubardak (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We have an example: why does only Marjorie Cohn know that the US policy that earned a Nobel Prize is really state terrorism?
What is the "mainstream media"? That of course requires editorial judgement. My past opinion is that the "about us" part of a home page is usually (but not always) illuminative.
By your own argument REDFLAG is a pointless policy because there is no "mainstream media". You really need to take this up with WP policy. I have a nose, and I know how to do a "smell test". You cannot perhaps, but I know how. I might make an error, but normally what stinks is actually rotten. FYI, the Arab Studies Quarterly was run by one professor and folded many years ago. We have many alleged human rights courts offering legal verdicts as sources, a single professor trying to create a peer reviewed journal is an improvement. No one in acedemia publishes in an obscure journal when they can publish in a real journal, ask any professor. Raggz (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be your argument Raggz. You are the one interpreting the policy to require "mainstream media". I am taking this up with you since my problem is with your particular interpretation and not with the WP policy. I am not going to address your concerns about this particular journal since I believe they are more than adequately addressed below. And as a final sidenote - I do not need to ask a professor; you can be sure I am familiar with publishing in journals ;). --Ubardak (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Arab Studies Quarterly ran for nearly 25 years and folded in 2003. It was founded by Ibrahim Abu-Lughod and Edward Said - two of the foremost Arab-American scholars of the 20th century (Said was one of the foremost scholars - of any nationality or field in the humanities - of the 20th century). It was very much a "real journal." The fact that it is "obscure" to you says more about your knowledge of the field than about the source. Sorry for commenting on this side issue - I want to keep to the general discussion but did not want to let the preceding mischaracterization go unanswered.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Above i quoted from the relevant pages:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources states that:
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
Wikipedia:REDFLAG states:
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim....Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material.

Taking these two policy guidelines together i think it is pretty clear that there is nothing in it that suggests only mainstream U.S. media sources are allowable.

Further, Raggz is misrepresenting the content of the example he uses; Cohn refers to U.S. military and financial aid for Israel as an example of "State Supported Terror". In other words, there is nothing in Cohn's article that says anything about the Camp David Accords. For Raggz to leap from Cohn's instructional example to a claim that she is in fact targeting the Camp David Accords with her criticism is, at the very least, WP:SYN. My own suggestion is that it is transparently WP:OR.

In any event, Redflag is little more than a comment on Reliable Sources; it expands on the standards established in WP:RS and clearly says that if the sources qualify as reliable then they may be included. WP:RS clearly says that research or exposition in scholarly journals is the gold-standards of sourcing. To once again reiterate: There is nothing that says such claims must be echoed by mainstream media. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have published in peer-reviewed journals. The last one was begun in 1908 and is still publishing with 14,265 subscribers. The Arab Studies Quarterly was never accepted by academia, if it was it would not have died the slow death it did. I am not against the Arab Studies Quarterl in any way. I actually admire the professor who put 25 years into trying to get it into the mainstream. Bigtimepeace misrepresents this issue. Mainstream academic journals never fold. Journals that are dying only attract authors who cannot get published anywhere else. Peer review standards may (or may not) suffer very significantly. Prove me wrong Bigtimepeace, name a "mainstream media" journal that has ever folded? Bigtimepeace knew that this article in the extinct journal was the basis for an "extraordinary claim" by me. As an editor and professor, he knew better than anyone that it was bogus, and an "extraordinary claim". He chose to suppress this and did not edit it out, even when I challenged it twice prior under REDFLAG. Why? I assume that his responsibility is first to his POV and second to WP policy. So Bigtimepeace, why didn't you act knowing more than anyone else that this was a bogus source? Raggz (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's clear that you personally don't consider Arab Studies Quarterly as a legitimate source. Unfortunately, most universities and academics involved in that area of expertise would disagree with you. ASQ -- contrary to the Wikipedia entry -- is still publishing and accepting articles for publication, and yes -- it remains the English language's most widely circulated academic journal treating the subject of Arabist and Middle Eastern studies. Bigtimepeace has "suppressed" nothing, nor neglected anything. Once again, your arguments are based on fundamental inaccuracies and misinterpretation of the available evidence. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Stone is right, the journal is indeed still being published (the last issue released electronically per ProQuest is from the Spring of 2007). I should have checked this instead of relying on the Wiki entry (which I'll change now). Regardless, journals - whether "mainstream" or not - fold all the time. There were a whole lot of journals in the nineteenth century - not many of those are around today. The fact that a journal ceases publication (which can happen for a variety of reason) says absolutely nothing about its previous importance, obviously. But this journal did not cease publication, so what Raggz says above is quite moot. Raggz's efforts to impugn my motives and suggestions that I "knew" it was a bogus source (I don't "know" that--I think it is a fine source, better than most sources we find on Wikipedia) are not constructive. Please don't speculate on my motives and suggest that I don't have the interests of Wikipedia and our policies foremost in my mind. Please don't suggest that you know what I "really" think about an issue and that I am merely dissembling.
Putting all that aside, I'm still hoping for outside comments on the "redflag" issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone offers an opinion from a 19th Century journal that gravity does not exist, I will offer a REDFLAG challenge, and demand a modern "mainstream" echo. "Mainstream" academic journals do not fold all of the time. Journals that have published for 150 years generally have the same "mainstream" status as the NY Times. A journal with two professors and 78 readers has the same status as a newspaper of that status. (My opinion) Raggz (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where you got "two professors and 78 readers" from, but I'm guessing you made it up. If you have evidence that the journal in question is not "the largest circulating journal in English devoted exclusively to the Arab World" then please provide it - don't make up nonsense numbers to make it look less important. When I said that respected journals "fold all the time" I meant that they folded frequently, not that they always folded (apologies if the wording was unclear). I will be the first to challenge a nineteenth century journal that does not believe in gravity, because any journal that had not heard of Newton by the 1800s should not be used as a source on Wikipedia (though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything). I only referenced 19th century journals to make the point that once-venerable journals do often fold. Anyhow the journal we are discussing has not folded, so there's no point in talking about this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not sure where you got "two professors and 78 readers" from, but I'm guessing you made it up." Yes, this was a hypothetical (analagous) example, so was the 19th Century claim about gravity. I reserve the right to hypothetical examples to illustrate points. Raggz (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All I know about the journal is what Arab Studies Quarterly says about it, and now you have edited it for accuracy so it is different. Maybe it is "mainstream", maybe not. You claim that mainstream status is irrelevant anyway? Raggz (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Visitors Note: The other editors have shifted some discussion to my User Page. Raggz (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked over the talkpage, and it appears that the loci of the dispute are several quotes. The most prominent example accuses the US of financing state terrorism through aid to Israel and committing it by bombing Afghanistan. (The same quote also mentions the Palestinian "national liberation struggle".) I'm not sure that too exceptional a claim, but even so, its from a well-known peer-reviewed journal, and written apparently by a professor of international law who's prominent in the field. I have no opinion on the use of the quote, which must have been taken out of context because otherwise it sounds a little silly (or perhaps dated, to early in the Second intifada), but as far as the source goes, I don't think I can claim that it's anything but excellent. Relata refero (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I moved (copied) the above from the reliable sources notice board to here as its part of the feedback that is helpful.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the claim of state terrorism by the US for aiding Israel and Egypt by the Camp David Accords to be "surprising". Our definitions section does not cover bilateral diplomacy or state aid as state terrorism. We first need a definition that fits Cohn's issues. We might also need a definition for state terrorism authorized by the UN. All that is needed to defeat my challenge is to offer one "mainstream media" echo that suggests that the US policy of offering aid is state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim wasn't made. Personal opinion doesn't matter. Redflag misinterpreted. Argument specious. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article length

At over 100kb the article is far too long. If the page is not to be renamed/merged it is important to work towards a tighter, less rambling version. There are lots of topics out there that Wikipedia could have even more on, but that doesn't help the average reader who would probably move on rather than try to trawl through this page. As it is certain editors seem to want to make it even longer.

Remember, Wikipedia isn't about indulging a personal interest - it's about helping someone understand a topic. I don't see how something this long can actually help the average reader. As someone used to reading long articles I must admit I have little or no interest wading through all the material here. In the unlikely event that hardly anything can be cut, content can go onto articles about the subjects in question. John Smith's (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the page on the atomic bombings and see no section on "state terrorism". Why is that? John Smith's (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't need one. Just like it doesnt need and have a separate section as a War Crime, Crimes Against Humanity, or Genocie. There is an opposition section that details the main arguments, and in the lead sentence it sums up how the different ways the opposition has characterized the bombing, including by mentioning "state terrorism." So there it is! Any detailed section about any of these sub topics properly belongs in its own article, such as this one, dealing specifically with State Terrorism. For it to be on the other article would be Undue Weight unless each of the other conceptual frameworks were likewise expanded.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One further thing, if any section needs to be expanded it is the "opposing views" area. One of the article's largest problems is that it is one-sided. John Smith's (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than some generic 'opposing views' section ('US does not support state terrorism' says credentialed source. 'I concur,' agreed second reliable source.), it would be more in line with the 'FORK' policy that Raggz has brought up to have these other view points integrated into the other sections. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Either way the article is one-sided. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm so happy to hear that you're motivated to make this article better. Why don't you start a sandbox and begin making suggestions there, as we have done with the Philippines' section? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article stems from the existence of a notable and growing literature on the topic. If it gets too long there is a very natural way of splitting it: a main article explaining the general conceptual framework, an article concerned with US state terrorism in Asia and the Middle East and a third article concerned with US state terrorism in Latin America. For the moment I think the Iran section is unnecessary, the Cuba section is ripe for a re-write which will be more economical. I think case studies are not so valuable to the article. They can be described in a shorter form and possibly linked to separate articles representing the cases.BernardL (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Bernard, the page is already too long - it isn't a future possibility. John Smith's (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break: Article Length, Pt II

I'm sorry -- i'm not clear on what your problems with the article is. Is it that it's too long -- which, i will once again remind you, is a direct result of the activities of deletionists and the repeated efforts to get this page deleted from Wikipedia -- or is it that it's POV?
Once again i will suggest that we could quite easily begin cleaning up the article were we only to see someone who objects to it do more than try to delete the reliably sourced, relevant and factual information provided here. There is no question that the facts and material presented here are apropos to the page. The only question is how we might encourage people such as yourself to do more than delete content or create superfluous obstacles to page maintenenance. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is too long and is POV. I'm not interested in why the page got here because I'm not saying it's all down to you. I'm making an observation.
You won't encourage me to do more than delete content deleting content and/or create "superfluous obstacles to page maintenenance" - I presume you are talking about Raggz - if Giovanni and Bernard are going to round on me for filing a peer review request and make snide comments about how "little" I know having been here for only a few days. Funnily enough, as someone commented a little while ago, it looks like I am being chased off by people who think they own the page and are hostile to outside involvement where it doesn't match up with what they think. John Smith's (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, i do contest that it is POV. From what i can see, the opinions and facts presented here are reliably sourced and widely acknowledged. It appears that you are making the mistake of assuming it has an implicit affirmation of the accusations presented. I challenge that; the problem with the article is that the evidence is, in and of itself, sickening and unpleasant to consider. But there is nothing stated in the article that takes an editorial slant one way or the other.
I will, however, admit that the article provides very little meaningful debate or context about the concepts presented here. The unfortunate truth, however, is that in order to do that it must become longer. Similarly, i can testify -- from personal experience -- that any attempt to bring in reliably sourced, contrasting perspectives to this page will be immediately deleted unless they use the phrase "State Terrorism" or are directly referred to by a source that does.
Now -- i am presuming good faith, here -- but what i want to ask you is a simple question: do you not grasp how that irresponsible standard of admission might influence the development of the page?
The absurd thing about it is that the people who introduced this standard are the very ones who have most loudly condemned it as too "POV". Three years ago -- and yes, you can go back into the diffs and look it up -- it was TravB, MONGO, Tom Harrison, and a few others who established this precedent. I very loudly and firmly objected to it then, pointing out that it would lead to this current state. Nobody listened. Ever since the same group has mercilessly enforced the standard; at every stage i have -- including now -- loudly protested that it is precisely this standard that has forced the page into the current format. If a source must reference or be referenced by an advocate who condemns the U.S. for the practice of State Terrorism then that effectively rules out any opposing views.
So i will say it once again: the resistance you are seeing here is not against you. It is against people who, occasionally, re-appear and demand the deletion of content and -- on at least seven occasions -- the entire page. Few pages on wikipedia have withstood seven AfD's and that makes this one of the most hotly contested in the whole project.
Thus i will, once again, politely suggest that you start up a sand-box and we will all see where we can take it from there. I edit in good faith, and i have confidence that BernardL does, as well. It appears that you and Giovanni have some "water under the bridge", but i have faith in his ability to be fair.
The problem, however, is that you have yet do suggest anything beyond the mere deletion of content. We need to move beyond that to make progress. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is POV because it mainly just presents one POV - that the US supports and carries out state terrorism. That isn't balanced. I'm not surprised there are references because a lot of people out there hate the US and everything it stands for. Is it surprising that the Cuban government would say all that the article mentions about the US? I am sure there are lots of people out there who don't argue because of a separate agenda, but the wealth of material is hardly indicative of anything in particular.
I am here to primarily offer observations. You can ignore them at your will. But there are lots of places material can be chopped and cropped. It is just one thing to do, but it is something that can be done nonetheless. John Smith's (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
John - I proferred 3 concrete measures which I suggest could be undertaken to trim (Iran, re-write Cuba, case studies). Moreover, I see no reason why, if it is deemed appropriate, an organic structural split could occur in the future. Who are you to dictate that there exists no such possibility of that?BernardL (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I second that, Bern, although i urge -- as i'm sure you agree -- that the Cuba re-write must be undertaken with a great deal of care. Also, i'm skeptical that the Iran section can be shortened much.
However, another thing i worry over is: where else would this information be properly moved? Perhaps we should move each sub-section to its own article: "Allegations of State Terrorism, U.S. :: The Nicaraguan Case", "Allegations of State Terrorism, U.S. :: The Cuban Case"; and so on. There is certainly quite a bit of material that we could add to each of those pages so that each one might grow to be as long as this one (longer, probably, in the case of Cuba / Central American countries). Any other wording would be open to misinterpretation, and simply adding a section to each country's page would likely be met with the same objections we see here (i.e. -- "The page is already too long"; or, more likely, "Why just a section on their objections to the U.S? Why not the accusations made against other countries?"; etc).
Thus, my suggestion is that if we decide to move these sections to links off of this article that the be maintained as specific case-studies linked directly back to various pages: State Terrorism, Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States, The United States, and each country's own page as well: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, The Philippines, etc. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you call the subarticles?

I removed the article length tag, and then reverted myself when I saw this discussion. Is there really an authentic proposal to create WP:SUMMARY articles with titles like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in Cuba etc? MilesAgain (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that is inappropriate. I would seek to use existing articles on countries and human rights/US foreign policy. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the primary hesitation that some editors have to breaking off to sub articles is that instead of having to defend one article from vandals and POV, there are several targets that vandals and POV crusaders will target and maintaining several articles in a healthy status will become an overwhelming chore. At least that is my sense of the conversations I have seen on this page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So then you would restore the content here and have yet another example of these people causing trouble. If they are so problematic you should use the formal dispute resolution channels. Complaining about them such that you can't even summarise material rather does suggest you should do that. John Smith's (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We all have a responsibility to this article. Our primary responsibility is for our own edits. People have edited in text that does not seem to even try to comply with NPOV. When an editor does this and then suggests that I do the editing necessary for their text to comply, my inclination is to instead delete it (as NPOV policy requires). If someone is making an obvious attempt and still needs some help, then I have more motivation to help other editors with their edits. How about I edit my contributions for NPOV - and we all do the same? Then we can discuss each others edits. This would be the best first step. Who agrees? Raggz (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Material is Neutral in its Point of View. You have failed to show it is not. Do not delete it without discussion. To add material, please create sandbox. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Philippines Again

In the sections entitled “Sandbox issues” and “Philippines Sandbox and Raggz’s Objections” Raggz voiced four principal objections to the Philippines sandbox [[6]] as follows:

1. an article by E. San Juan, Jr. "Class Struggle and Socialist Revolution in the Philippines: Understanding the Crisis of U.S. Hegemony, Arroyo State Terrorism, and Neoliberal Globalization." Raggz asked “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

2. article by E. San Juan, Jr. "Filipina Militants Indict Bush-Arroyo for Crimes Against Humanity." Raggz asked “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

3. article by Simbulan, Roland G. "The Real Threat." “Does anyone see anything in this about state terrorism and the US? If so, please paste the text here to prevent deletion.”

4. Cohn, Marjorie (2002-03-22). Understanding, responding to, and preventing terrorism (Reprint). Arab Studies Quarterly. Raggs wrote “The policy challenge is WP:REDFLAG.”

I think three of the four of these policy objections have already been met, squarely, and the objections have been shown to be groundless...

Objection #4 – Marjorie Cohn is a reliable source and the Redflag claim against her essay has been argued to death on this talk page. There is no reasonable grounds for deleting it based on the redflag guideline, because the guideline is inapplicable to this reliable source.

Objection # 1 – article [[7]] by E. San Juan Jr. Above I showed that the article clearly demonstrates an integral connection to the concept of significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism against the Philippines. In my counterargument I wrote, “Perhaps the title itself might suggest that San Juan thinks the U.S. is significantly complicit in "Arroyo state terrorism"? Not convinced? Ok, then how about reading the sub-section called U.S. Patronage? Or how about considering one of his concluding observations: "In effect, Arroyo state terrorism is designed to 1) insure regime survival and reproduction of its personnel; 2) protect the privileges of the elite and the capital accumulation of a class fraction of the ruling bloc; and 3) promote neoliberal/U.S. hegemonic supremacy in Asia and the world, given its historic dependency on the former colonizers."

Objection #2 – article [[8]] by E. San Juan Jr, to help erase Raggz’s doubts I did the legwork to draw the following substantiation from the article: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses...Clearly, the Arroyo regime is hell-bent on stifling all legal opposition, if not liquidating physically all dissenters and critics, by State terror.

Now to objection #3 – which is an article by Roland Simbulan…[[9]]

In the article text the citation is 1 of 7 citations for which the context is: “There have been increasing condemnations made of U.S. influence upon the Philippine military, many of which charge the U.S. with the sponsorship of state terrorism[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] through the policies implemented by the military advisers and military aid it has delivered as part of its War on Terror.” I think the article cited pretty much fits the claim. Comments?... And finally a reminder to some that although we are writing with computers this is not a computer game, the injustice in the Philippines is going on right now, [[10]] BernardL (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And finally a reminder to some that although we are writing with computers this is not a computer game, the injustice in the Philippines is going on right now
Umm, what exactly is your point? You're making it sound like this is a place for activism, which is not what Wikipedia is about. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think his point is that people who work to delete this content are actually working to suppress knowledge of reliably sourced and well-reported current events. There is nothing that smacks of "activism" in that -- unless, that is, you are are suggesting that to assert a faith in the value of free speech and properly referenced, accurate journalism is "activism" of some sort?
Do correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't those two principles fundamental to the Wikipedia project? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the section you want to add/change, I rather disagree with it given this article is supposed to be about things the US does. If you're going to extend it to support given to countries which themselves commit "state terrorism" then really it's a huge mess. That hrw article you referred to actually asks the US to show displeasure against the government. Why would HRW just say that if it thought the US was sponsoring it? Surely it would call on other countries to take action against the US.
At the very, very least you need to cut it down to what the US does. At the moment it's a rant about what the local government does and then an attempt to tie it to the US. Create an article for the Philippine government if you really want to talk about it - then maybe have a brief explanation for the support the US gives and then why that is "state terrorism". John Smith's (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break -- Philippines Again, Pt II

There is no "extension" taking place; the Cohn article clearly articulates that "State-Sponsored Terrorism" is one form of "State Terrorism", and in it she uses U.S. support for Israeli crimes as her example. San Juan Jr, Fr. Cullen, and Simbulan all explicitly make a connection between U.S. sponsorship, complicity, and support and the acts of "State Terror" they describe. In each case, the U.S. is either explicitly condemned as a progenitor of State Terror or lumped in with the Arroyo regime as a co-operator. In [| the] article, San Juan explicitly references "U.S. Terror", makes repeated reference to Arroyo's "State Terror", and at least five references to U.S. "sponsorhip", "patronage", or "control" of the Arroyo regime and its "terror" policies. Beyond this, he devotes an entire section of the article (5 paragraphs) to "U.S. Patronage". To accuse a nation of "Patronage" or "Sponsorship" of State Terror is clearly to allege that they have committed "State Terror"; to suggest otherwise is to attempt to twist language beyond recognition. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My link to the HRW article was not actually for inclusion in this article. Others make a more explicit connection between the state terror in the Philippines and the U.S. It was for general information, because as the issue has been raised most people have seemed nonchalant about it. With regard to restricting this state terrorism article to just the "things the U.S. does" I strongly disagree. The article stems from a serious literature which concerns significant US complicity in state terrorism. In this literature it is well documented that much of this complicity is indirect, in the form of consciously arranging one's affairs so that proxies do one's dirty work, so as to maintain "plausible deniability." The concept of plausible deniability is extremely important, it appears in the highest level planning material, and is analyzed extensively in the literature. One of the best analytical treatments of the doctrine is in "Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability," (Palgrave MacMillan).BernardL (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said that the HRW article was for inclusion - I pointed out that it rather "strangely" ignores US "sponsorship". Why do you think it did that if it is such an obvious "fact"?
I know you disagree on US association with other countries and what you do - otherwise you wouldn't have written it up. You can't hide behind what others have written on the subject because anyone can write whatever they like these days. Who decides what is "serious literature"? No one, other than people that like it.
The problem with something like plausible deniability is that there is rarely hard evidence to support the charge. Otherwise the US could never deny anything and the whole thing would be pointless. It's like those that say "ah, the reason you don't hear about it is that it's been covered up". Now I'm sure all the books you've read give lots of credible opinion, but what details do they actually supply that one can check? You talk about documentation, but what documents are actually referred to? What facts can be independently verified outside of those views? John Smith's (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid your ignorance on this subject is showing, JohnS. There is amble and substantial evidence, including facts that no one denies, to suport many of the claims, however, this is not for you to consider for our purposes here, anyway. That is for the experts, specialists in their field of expertise to document and analyze, and discuss. They make the conclusions, the claims; its for us to simply report what they say accurately. And, yes, this is the serious literature that BernardL talks about. Its only for us to be aware of these issues and to report them, reflecting the content of the various reputable sources. This talk page is not a place for you to get an education on the subject either, as you seem to be doing with your questions that are really off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Giovanni, the only thing that is showing is your obsession with self-appointed "experts" and "specialists". I asked some very simply questions about what can be verified independently. That you seek to attack and undermine rather than answer speaks volumes about you. John Smith's (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not discussing "self-appointed experts". As has been repeatedly -- repeatedly -- pointed out, these are Filipinos occupying key professional, academic, and activist roles and who have won wide respect internationally, locally, academically and professionally.
The HRW article is useful as corroboration of the acts in question, how they occurred, and whether or not they are clearly impugnable as State Actions. The answer to all of those questions is clearly "yes" -- as in, "yes, the article clearly affirms that all of these statements are true".
It is the other commentators -- San Juan Jr, Simbulan, etc -- who voice the allegations of U.S. involvement, support, patronage, or responsibility. I feel that their authority and reliability have been properly established; each is in a position that accords them access to relevant data and information, each has long served in a position of trust and authority; each heads up large organizations dedicated to either academic, political, or human rights research or activism; and each is widely published and respected in the Philippines. Is there anything else that is required to establish them as reliable sources?
Finally, it is irrelevant whether or not there may be problems with establishing whether or not the U.S. is utilizing the concept of "Plausible Deniability"; presented here are many reliable sources that allege U.S. involvement/responsibility in the Philippines' current spate of State Terror. BernardL mentioned Plausible Deniability only in response to John Smith's rather off-topic question; Smith has, however, tacitly admitted that when initiating actions of the sort we are discussing the U.S. openly pursues "plausible deniability". For our current discussion that's where the discussion ends; your question was answered: HRW didn't mention U.S. involvement because they didn't see the value in it. Beyond that, there is nothing more any of us can attribute to their motives, and John Smith's attempt to draw further conclusions from BernardL's answer is as bad a case of WP:SYN and WP:OR as i have ever seen.
Having resolved that the question is now simple:
  • Do these sources -- San Juan Jr, Simbulan, Fr. Cullen, etc -- qualify as reliable, or not?
If they do, then the section can be included.
I consider them adequate to Wikipedia standards.
And as our interlocutor, Mr John Smith, has observed: in light of U.S. policies regarding "Plausible Deniability" and our current subject, it is often the case that we must be satisfied with merely adequate sources. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I nowhere indicated that this report suggested that HRW thought the US was sponsoring state terror in the Philippines. It is unclear whether you assumed I thought this or whether you were just asking a question, that's why I stated that the link was not ever intended for the article. Moreover, you should know that I had no hand in writing that section. I rescued it on request because it was blanked without explanation some time ago. It has been suggested for re-insertion. It is not a new section. I have looked at the above objections by Raggz and found them lacking. Regarding evidence for "plausible deniability", and details for the linkages and acts themselves, they are discussed extensively by reliable sources, that's what matters for the purposes of wikipedia. For this thread, such discussion and the additional questions you brought up are straying too much off-topic. But the literature is far more than just "opinion" as you deride it. Does the evidence and documentation stand-up? Well, you can't hide behind an a priori dismissal of views you show no indication of having considered seriously, which is what you are doing.BernardL (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Bernard, again I never said you did. I asked the question of why the organisation would ignore a point like that.
So, as I asked where do the sources make reference to verifiable facts? Please give me some examples. John Smith's (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break, Philippines AGAIN, pt III

All of the sources that make the charge of U.S. responsibility or patronage of State Terror make detailed reference to the origins of their factual claims. These are all clearly sourced and footnoted on the sandbox page. Considering their number, i think it might be better if you were to tell us which ones you think are inadequate. At least four of us here have already gone over that section in detail and considered its strengths and weaknesses. We have been discussing it, now, for at least two weeks; all told, the page has been available in sandbox now for almost a month. If you have any objections to it then now would be the time to voice them; you have had more than enough time to evaluate the section and let us know what you do or don't consider appropriate. It seems most of the editors here have taken the time to review it and consider the ideas therein presented. Unless you are able to give the material similar respect -- by properly sourcing and referencing your objections in adequate detail -- we will be forced to presume that you are not interested enough in the article to bother and will make the decision for inclusion without you. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering their number, i think it might be better if you were to tell us which ones you think are inadequate.
I think you misunderstand. I am talking about "deniability", as a lot of the material is about the Philippines government, not the US directly taking action. But Bernard said the point is that the US was involved/sponsoring in the activity indirectly. So I pointed out that if the US has a credible means of denying involvement, where does the hard, independently verifiable evidence come from?
I am sure most of the editors have commented, but I know two of them have very similar, polarised political views - I wouldn't put it past the rest to lean the same way, though I do not assume so. If you want to put it in I am not going to stop you. I am here to express alternative views - you can ignore them and do what you want, anytime you want. But you shouldn't dismiss them because I'm not going to buy half a dozen books and devote time to making my own edits (especially when two editors are so hostile at the moment). After all, you wouldn't expect someone who did a peer review to do that, would you? John Smith's (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, John Smith, i do not misunderstand. As i have pointed out -- repeatedly, and even just above in the passage you (presumably) just read -- the accusations of U.S. involvement come from quite a few reliable sources (last i counted it was something like six or seven on that section). From there, the rest of the citations are precisely the "hard evidence" that you requested.
The citations to which i refer clearly make the argument that it is U.S. support, training, and money that is directing, ordering, and enabling the Philippine Government's State Terrorism. The words they use are "patronage", "imperialism", "support", "partnership", and so on. Now, what i would ask you is this: where is the "hard and fast" evidence that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the Taliban? I haven't seen any. I've read a lot of commentary by people who claim they have, but they didn't see it themselves and they didn't quote the relevant texts, testimony, or observations from direct witnesses.
The point being that we should not hold a double standard regarding source reliability. To my mind, these Filipino researchers, activists, and academics are clearly reliable sources, commentators with direct involvement in human rights work in the Philippines, professionals and Academics involved in research and exposition about these precise issues, and they have declared that the U.S. is guilty of sponsoring state terror.
So let me say it once again, just so we're perfectly clear: the issue is whether or not these sources are reliable. Your digression into the motives of HRW, the U.S. government, and investigative journalism is irrelevant. The current discussion is whether or not these commentators are reliable.
Now, regarding their claims they each have provided evidence. That evidence has been footnoted at the bottom of the page and commented upon in the section at question. We would like to know what your sense is of that evidence.
Regarding the hostile editors i can only say that when you are editing on this page you must have a thick skin.  :-) The people who come here usually fall into two groups: deletionists and people who want to add material. The numbers are usually skewed slightly towards the deletionists.
Consequently, a very delicate protocol has developed for adding material. If you find these editors hostile then i can only say that you might want to give a bit more consideration to the protocols we keep making reference to. For my own part i would be very pleased to see you start up a sand-box and make some suggestions. But until you do i, too, will remain skeptical that you have any ideas for the page go beyond the mere elimination of content.
Finally - yes. Absolutely. If you would like to be a valuable contributor to this page then i would suggest you go out and get some books. That is precisely what the peer reviewing process involves: going out and secure relevant material -- books, articles, published research data, whatever -- and studying it before giving an opinion. I see no reason why anyone should expect less here. For my own part, i am an expatriate who lives in Taiwan and is very familiar with International Law, both by virtue of Taiwan's unique status as well as from my professional experiences and personal reading. I have digested quite a bit of recent S.E. Asian history. By virtue of my Amerind ancestry i have also digested quite a bit of U.S. history. By virtue of my early life, study, and work in Texas i have also come to learn quite a bit about Central American history. Even so, i do a lot of research and grunt work on this page. When i present material for inclusion i go around and find whatever i can. So yes, absolutely -- i would expect no less of anyone else who posts here.
That said, it is not necessary for you to go out and get a book about, say, the El Salvador human rights abuses. If you truly think the article needs balance -- and are interested in helping -- then i would suggest going out and finding a scholarly treatment of International Law and the concept of State Terror. I am sure that you would, by reading something like that, find material useful for developing this article in the direction you would prefer. Even were the book to neglect the United States' entirely, i am positive that you would find material everyone here would be happy to see included. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We have had loads of discussion concerning this sandbox. I think objections to the Philippines section have been satisfactorily met. If anyone still disagrees with any of the submitted content please raise the isssue here, and please try to be specific.BernardL (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGYwYzRkYTJjZTM5MzlhMDA2NjRkZDE2NDdjYzFjOWY=#more
  2. ^ http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/whernews.html
  3. ^ http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/agosto/vier3/31Alan.html
  4. ^ http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/abril/juev5/14battle-i.html
  5. ^ http://www.granma.cu/ingles/feb03/vier14/alarcon.html
  6. ^ Now, in this particular field of knowledge -- the internal workings of Philippine government -- there are virtually no mainstream sources to which one can turn (the information is largely suppressed in the Philippines, and in English the subject is practically ignored). Thus Raggz' own definition -- that mention must be made by mainstream U.S. media sources -- is patently inapplicable. That there is a government of the Philippines no one doubts. That there is a nation of millions of Filipinos, no one doubts. But to suggest that there is no criticism or observation of what happens in the Philippines' government beyond what is mentioned in major, mainstream U.S. media is clearly a ridiculous assertion."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism/Archive_17&oldid=926044239"