Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

To determine whether there is a consensus to delete or keep this article, I look to the head count as a first approximation. I count 15 people wanting to delete the article and 26 who want to keep it. This does not include 6 "delete" and 12 "keep" opinions that I discount because they are completely unfounded in policy or are otherwise unhelpful (for instance, allegations of bad faith). On a purely numerical basis, therefore, we have the makings of a very narrow "keep" consensus.

Next, I determine whether one of our core policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), which consensus cannot supercede, mandates deletion because a core policy violation cannot be remedied by any other means.

  • First, it has been put forth that the article is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, because "conflating [the allegations covered in the article] must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space." This is unpersuasive. Many articles and lists cover issues widely separate in time and space because they have something in common. Synthesis would only occur if it were a novel idea - original research - to group the various incidents covered here under the label "state terrorism". As demonstrated by the section "General allegations against the US", however, various notable people have had this idea before, and I cannot therefore detect any irremediable WP:SYNTH problems.
  • Second, the article has been said to violate WP:NPOV. POV-tainted content (e.g. "This is a list of terrorist atrocities committed by the US") can be remedied by editing, obviously, so deletion would be only warranted if the very concept of the article makes it impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. The only reason provided in this discussion why this is supposed to be the case is that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism". That may be so, but this article can (and should) only report that various significant people have reliably voiced the opinion that such-and-such is state terrorism by the US; but not that these incidents are indeed state terrorism. In short, no credible argument has been made that no neutral article can ever be written about this subject. (I'm not addressing the WP:COATRACK argument here because that essay is not part of the core policy, but see below.)
  • Third, only one person seems to doubt that we can write a verifiable article about this issue, and he does so by casting doubt on the sources used as being "extremist and fringe". This ignores that an article dedicated to covering allegations may well cover allegations by extremist and fringe people, if these people's views are considered significant and well-sourced. In any case, the argument is not made that the subject matter is irremediably unverifiable. Accordingly, no core policy mandates the deletion of this article, because its deficiencies (if any) can be remedied by editorial processes which include editing or merging.

My last step is to determine whether any of the "delete" arguments are so strong (i.e., well-founded in policy), or the "keep" arguments so weak, that the "delete" arguments decisively outweigh the "keep" arguments even though there is no supermajority (our usual rough approximation of a consensus) to delete the article. I do not find that to be the case. To mention only the most significant arguments:

  • The argument that the article is a battlefield has never to my knowledge been accepted as a reason to delete an article. Otherwise, we would have very little coverage of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East or much else. If an article is too heavily contested, less destructive remedies such as protection, blocking edit warriors, or issuing general sanctions remain available. We have successfully dealt with Liancourt Rocks in this manner.
  • The article's content issues (OR, NPOV, etc.), if any, can generally be remedied through editing or renaming the article.
  • As to the WP:COATRACK argument, a coatrack article is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to bashing B. The present article is supposed to be about allegations of state terrorism by the US, and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack, and in any case, a coatrack article does not usually need deletion - just editing.
  • The "keep" arguments (apart from those I have already discounted) generally focus on this article meeting our inclusion criteria, such as WP:N and WP:V. These are not particularly weak arguments.

In sum, after evaluating the arguments that have been made, I conclude that not only is there no consensus to delete this article, but that we have a significant majority favouring to keep the article, and that the "delete" opinions are mostly not well founded in policy and precedent. The consensus emerging from this discussion, therefore, is to keep the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comments made after I added the {{closing}} tag may not have been evaluated in this closure. A previous non-admin "keep" closure of this discussion was reverted; I endorse this reversion. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States[edit]

[Note: I've just moved the page to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States per the talk page; it doesn't affect my vote William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]


Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been nominated for deletion many times and I do know that. I also know the subject is possibly notable. But looking at the lead sentence alone, I can see POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera. This is also a potential embarassment to Wikipedia because it's been tagged as such since mid-last year, and the problems go back way beyond that, possibly to the point of the article's conception. I can safely say that people aren't fixing it, they're just making noise on the talk page. In short, this is the textbook example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and our credibility may increase as a result of it. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFDs
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on balance. There is undoubtedly evidence that the US has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, but we have proven that we are completely unable to document it in isolation without violating every single policy we have. Repeatedly. And then violating them all again. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination and disruptive nomination. Any POV problem is editing, the topic is notable, it is valid topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is valid if WP:NPOV and WP:V is respected. Clearly there are problems and have been for a long time now but we do not solve these problems by declaring defeat - and that is exactly what this nom is doing. If this is deleted it will most likely be recreated shortly anyway - most likely under a new title too. A better approach here is to show those who disrupt the article the door with less discussion and more liberal use of the block button. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum Having looked at this again and in view of the full protection I see now that little has changed since I walked away from it last summer - mainly because all progress was being halted by people screaming no consensus to everything including things that actually favored their side of the dispute. This article, like many others that go unnoticed, is used as a battleground by people whose motives for editing Wikipedia are purely political. With that in mind I'll be willing to support deletion if the article isn't stubbed and the people using it to promote their own POV rather than present the topic in a purely neutral way are not shown the door. I was willing to give this a chance but judging from the debate below I'm less convinced than before that we haven't already declared defeat by not handing out bans on both sides more liberally. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable and has number of RS sources to back it up, just because few people are unable to clean it up per NPOV is no reason for Deletion. Taprobanus (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The massive COATRACK issues, the continual edit warring, and the rampant soapboxing aren't in and of themselves reasons to delete an article, irritating as they are. However, a large majority of the sources fail WP:V due to their extremist and fringe nature. Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky, despite their supporters' fervent desire, are not representative of mainstream thought on the topic. Skinwalker (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it is fair of you to dismiss Noam Chompsky as not a RS. I'm not sure you are qualified to make that judgment at all. he has written dozens of critically well received books on this subject (among others). If you don't agree with his politics then that is one thing but it doesn't make him unreliable.Protonk (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subject with reliable sources. The current poor state of the article is not grounds for deletion but the result of poor editing practices such as edit-warring instead of constructive debate and compromise. Were this to be enforced, I could easily imagine the article becoming rather a good one. --John (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I urge all of you voting to keep to look at WP:HOPELESS: "If the subject is notable, but the current article is so blatantly biased that it's an embarrasment, or a blatant hoax where all the statements are wrong, then Wikipedia may indeed be better off without the article. Things which cause concerns over core policies like verifiability need to be addressed, and simply saying that major concerns of that nature could be solved eventually, is not going to solve the problem." definitely applies to this article. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Yasser Arafat can be brought to Feature Article status, NOTHING is HOPELESS. You severly underestimate the powers of your fellow Wikipedians.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all you are quoting that out of context. Second, you are using something that isn't even a guideline. Third, why is this article not on probation? If I didn't know better I would stub this article myself but there is a valid topic here and deleting it will only result in recreation. I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised but we do not solve these problems by deleting the article. With due respect I think that is a naive approach to dealing with the article at not least those who are disrupting it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How am I misquoting it? I listed the exception to the "surmountable problem" argument to avoid. Besides, "why bother?" isn't a valid reason for keeping an article (see "better here than there") Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because there is a valid article to be had if stubbed and reworked from there. Thus the exception you are quoting does not apply. If stubbed is there an actual policy or even guideline that would be violated? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sceptre, I know the sentences you quoted from WP:HOPELESS very well. I was the one who wrote them. I cannot claim to own the only valid interpretation of what I wrote, but I can say that I did not write it to encourage the deletion of articles with long-lasting problems regarding NPOV, because even an article which is contentious has information which is valuable to the reader. Articles which are an "embarrassment" to Wikipedia are things like hoaxes on otherwise valid and notable topics, articles which are just spam and don't even try to be neutral, and articles which do nothing to describe the subject suggested in the title. If several editors have worked, argued and discussed in order to provide encyclopedic coverage on a contentious topic, then that is not a "hopeless" or "embarrassing" cause. On the contrary, I would call that Wikipedia at it's best, attempting at least, to provide neutral coverage on an issue which many people have very strong and convicted opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, I suggest you look at WP:DP which states: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. I believe that trumps WP:HOPELESS, since WP:DP is policy. — Becksguy (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep none of the reasons stated by the nom "POV violations, coatracking, off-topic straying, synthesis, original research, et cetera" are valid criteria for deletion. The topic is WP:N with numerous WP:RS. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear the consensus regarding this article disagrees with you, or the tags on it would have been gone a long time ago. Jtrainor (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrainor, how ridiculous, everyone always argues that their side has "consensus", it is the most abused word on wikipedia. Personally, I find that people usually point out consensus when there is none.
If this article is so againt "consensus", why has it survived 7 AfDs? Why have there been so many editors who have fought against the large scale deletion vandalism? I think the tag simply shows that there is no consensus, and that the editors who have been fighting this vandalism are more tolerant of different views than editors on other pages. Try adding a "POV tag" on the September 11th page, it will be removed by those editors in less than an hour. Trav (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per TheRedPenOfDoom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the article could theoretically be improved, but on balance it may simply be better if it were deleted and other articles expanded. As Guy says, there has been so much edit-warring over it that if it is ever to be improved it will involve a lot of people being banned/heavily restricted in their editing. Some people may like the idea of that, but I think that would be a shame. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable by the numerous sources to be had. All of the things that are listed by the nominator are things that can be fixed and repaired through normal editing. Controversy surrounding a subject is not a good reason to delete an article, nor is controversy surrounding the article itself. Regarding the comment above me, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. We're supposed to be objective here, and if you can't be, then don't edit difficult articles. Celarnor Talk to me 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation. While the subject is notable, we could do much better by simply nuking it and starting again. While I am usually the first to claim any article is better than non at all, in some cases the issues outweigh the benefits. Since we can most-likely assume that it will be recreated, then I see no reason not to start over, as I don't think it could end up much worse than this. Random89 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is sourced and describe real facts. I suppose that this article has been tagged for deletion due to politcal reasons.User:Lucifero4
  • delete. Notable subject, appalling article. Its just a list of areas, most (all?) of which are covered elsewhere. It makes no attempt to integrate these disparate threads together, which would be the justification for its existence William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I share the frustration of those who feel that the article, in its current form, is in a shambles. However, this article has survived a total of seven prior AfD attempts, and has a substantial history of turmoil. Deletion is a drastic step, tantamount to asserting that there is no salvageable version anywhere in the history of the article, and thus in effect overturning the collective weight of all previous AfDs. Given the fact that the article is currently not in a "stable" state (over half of it was deleted recently, restored, deleted, restored...), I suggest that this AfD be postponed until heads are cooler, and responses are more tempered. silly rabbit (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awful, unsalvageable article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad as it stands. Several useful references in there, though, that address this topic specifically. I don't think that we can or should delete it given those circs. Don't see what this nomination is doing. Sceptre, please stop nomming things for deletion that you know are going to receive lots of keep support unless you have a novel argument to make. If you really want our credibility to increase, go delete real SYNTH articles like Denial of the Holodomor, not something that has half a dozen bloody academic seminars a year devoted to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being and fix if possible. The title is POV even with "allegations" added and grammatically wrong (the allegations are about the USA not by the USA, an allegation of state terrorism by the USA would be the USA saying about some other countries actions "that's state terrorism"). I think this is a case of an article which hasn't clearly stated what its topic is. Perhaps "Allegations that the USA has broken international law" is a better topic. Also consider merge to other topics.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? "by the United States" is modifying "state terrorism", not "allegations." 70.227.26.127 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COATRACK X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I took this off my watchlist because I was sick of dealing with it, and the article I see now bears little resemblance to the one I saw a couple of months ago. I don't know if that's good or bad, but the deletions seem excessive. This is an extremely notable topic and that's what is at issue here. The problem with this article is that over the years it has been worked on largely by two groups of people: 1) People who love it, and want to include every possible accusation, sometimes even if it goes against NPOV; 2) People who hate it and want it deleted and spend most of their time putting it up for AfD, deleting massive sections, or adding irrelevant material for balance. The former group was largely owning the article a few months ago, now the latter seems to be moving in. Unsurprisingly the result of all of this has not been a good article (though it's not, or wasn't, nearly as bad as some are making it). However deleting it is clearly the wrong way to go. The topic is notable and quite frankly deleting it makes us look a little bit ridiculous if we do so. I can't help but notice that no one has put Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, or Allegations of state terrorism by Iran up for deletion (all of which are linked to at the bottom of this page). I find that very revealing, and an outside observer might wonder why we can have those articles but not this one, why this has been put up for AfD and those have not. Basically the answer is that this article creates a lot of drama because more folks on en.wikipedia have strong feelings about US foreign policy than the foreign policy of Russia or Sri Lanka. But that's a terrible rationale, and to delete this and keep the others (perhaps someone will put them up for AfD now, though I don't see a basis for that) is, I think, to violate our core policy on NPOV. This project has its base of operation in the US and is very heavily "staffed" by American volunteers. Sceptre thinks the article in its current state makes Wikipedia look a bit ridiculous (and I don't necessarily disagree with that), but we look far more ridiculous by deleting an article critical of US foreign policy because the lot of us can't figure out a way to edit it properly. My keep rationale is per WP:N, but I hope the other component of my argument will be considered.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you talk about the "allegations.. sri lanka" article. As the one who moved it to its present title from a ridiculous "State terr by/in SL" or something, let me tell you that that article has been at the center of vehement disputes too. I am not sure but I think it has also been put up for deletion once or twice.. or has come pretty close. Also, the reason this article is AfD-ed more often is not because this is a more high profile target or anything, but simply because there's several orders of magnitude more people editing American articles(not just this one) compared to those editing SLankan articles. We could probably count the number of active editors on the Sri Lankan project on two hands. The problem with these articles is that there simply is no way in the wiki process to ensure that it will read even remotely balanced. And we keep proclaiming that NOR, NPOV etc are non-negotiable. UCS-->delete is the way to go. it is WP:NOTABLE .. so keep it smacks of BURO. Sarvagnya 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically making the same point that I am but coming to a different conclusion. I'm arguing that it's precisely because there are far more folks editing articles on this and other American topics that this article has been especially controversial and thus put up for AfD time and time again. Few are arguing here that the subject is not notable (which usually would be how we decide a matter like this), rather they are saying the article is a pain and we can't maintain it properly. That fact is a function of the fact that there are a ton of American/interested-in-American-topics editors on this site and that this particular topic is extremely politically contentious. By following the "this article is more trouble than it's worth" delete rationale we end up deleting an article critical of American foreign policy (because we argue too much about it which decreases the article quality) while keeping identical articles on two countries with whom the United States has significant disputes, namely Iran and Russia. I think that is a significant NPOV problem, and it's instructive to consider how a Russian or an Iranian would feel about all of this. As to your last comment, if I read you right you seem to be saying that even though the topic is notable, a desire to keep it is a form of rules-lawyering (WP:BURO). Simply because the notability guidelines support the keep side and not the delete side does not mean that the former's invocation of said guidelines is a form of instruction creep. If the topic was not notable delete commenters would clearly be mentioning that (as many did in previous AfD's), however it is so they are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it cant be deleted, it should be hacked down and reduced to a stub. Barring WP:NOTE, articles like this fly in the face of every known policy and guideline. Sarvagnya 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. The article is being fixed. There was a problem with the article name trying to make it cover opposite subjects. Well it cannot. The article is not a debate but reference to facts. It must stay on topic as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States I support the move by William M. Connolley. Igor Berger (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a highly bias POV fork aimed at attacking America based entirely on anti-american allegations. The United States government does not practice state terrorism, and wikipedia should not promote that conspiracy theory. Yahel Guhan 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you feel it biased and POV but it is not. There are many articles that deal with controversial issues, should we be deleting all of them? Should we delete abortion, fascism, anti-semitism, anti-americanism, waterboarding, psuedoscience, there are more. We are not censored! Igor Berger (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the new name (move the talk page too, please, Dr. admin -- why would an admin not move the whole thing?) The topic is notable. The correct way to fix an article on a notable topic is not to delete the article, it is to improve it. Listing Port (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

  • Delete This article, as stated, has had problems since it's creation, including a cabal of editors with severe WP:OWN issues who edit war and use sockpuppets to ensure that the article reflects a specific POV, instead of following NPOV. It consists of scads and scads of poorly sourced material and duplicates things in many other articles, in some cases, having individual sections even longer than actual articles on the subject. I also note the consistent accusations of bad faith noms in virtually every AfD this article has been through, without a flick of evidence, often from the very same editors that edit war so frequently on this article. I urge all admins to keep strict control of this AfD and not let these spurious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to go unchallenged. Jtrainor (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I encourage admins reading this AfD to read [[1]] and remove spurious puppet votes accordingly. Jtrainor (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have it for other countries. POV does not mean something should be deleted, it means verified and cleaned-up. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On balance, better to have it, then not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the new name seems to sort out a lot of problems. To delete it when articles on other countries exist will look like censorship. There seem to be enough people here with strong views to ensure a balanced article so I can't see why the "poorly sourced" and OR sections have not been removed. Sophia 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its sourced and highly informative, but it clearly needs to be protected(temporarily) and more discussion needs to take place to try and get it into a relatively stable condition. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why risk the appearance of censorship? I don't see any problems that can't be addressed by following WP guidelines and policy. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a notable topic (now that it's been renamed, at least). POV will obviously be a problem in an article like this, but that's an argument for more diligent editing, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article (and it's talk page especially) should be classified as being of historical interest and never be deleted. I doubt there is anywhere on internet where people have bickered and reverted each other back and forth with so much futility and puerility. Also if this article were to be deleted the people who like arguing like this all day would not disappear. They would just move on to other articles , possibly ones which are of actual utility, rather than this disjointed collection of true but unrelated accusations. As for giving wikipedia a bad name I'm more worried about all the vanity and Pokemon articles that are springing up all over the place. Jackaranga (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we deleted every article we had conflicts over, Wikipedia would be a veritable block of swiss cheese. The solution is to crack down on problematic editing, not to delete. krimpet✽ 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill The article and start over. Keep the old version for he historical record, and start over with a clean and mostly NPOV version. 192.77.125.21 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete State terrorism has no agreed on definition. It is not an international legal term unlike terrorism by non-state actors. As such it is just a perjorative term used by certain sensationalist writers. The term lacks content besides being inflammatory. Could as well have an article called Very bad things done by the United States.
Also, the article has been a dumping ground for all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism. Added by anonymous editors who personally are convinced that something is very bad=terrorism even if the source does not make any such claim. As such the article will always be a battleground. There are other articles for criticizing the United States on human rights, foreign policy, or more specific grounds. The article thus has no purpose.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if it came to Iran. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any similarly named article for reasons given.Ultramarine (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are multiple definition that were most recently deleted from the article: [2] oddly enough by someone voting delete. You should be aware, you supported the deletion in this revert: [3] --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple possible claimed definitions. No agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "possible definitions." An official definition by the United States government, seems to be agreed upon by the United States government, which is at question. Further if the article is exploring or discussing a classification of events, the definition does not have to be exact to all instances. The definition of "war" depends on who is applying it, a government, a lay person, a lawyer, etc. Making this argument of there being no one universal definition agreed upon by all man, false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am talking about "state terrorism" not terrorism by non-state actors. Regarding non-state actors there is also no agreement but at least several international conventions. Although they use different definitions. The US also has several different internal definitions of terrorism by non-state actors in different laws and documents. Regarding state terrorism there are no legal definition at all. It does not exist as a legal concept in international laws.Ultramarine (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
States are regulated by laws regarding war crimes, human rights etc. To quote former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has stated that it "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is a red herring, the article is not discussing a legal construct. As noted in my point above, much like the term "war", it is both a classification of conflicts, and to some degree a legal status of an event. Arguing something has no legal definition does not make it vanish. The fact that many writers, over 20+ cited in the article and quoted, use the term and apply their definitions, as well as the United States of America, there seems to be an existence and agreed upon notion of what State terrorism is. All which appear to circle around the notion of the "state" committing terrorism against a civilian populace. Please do not present any further red herrings. While it is a nice quote, it does not make "state terrorism" disappear from existence and further proves that your argument that a "legal definition" must exist to be false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, your argument would actually be a valid reason, if accepted, to delete the article on state terrorism. Do you find that article to be in need of addition to this AfD? --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "state terrorism" and terrorism by non-state actors are different things. The US certainly has no definition of "state terrorism". All people using the term "state terrorism" have invented their own personal definition of "state terrorism", usually very different if they bother to state any definition at all, and claims that something is this. As such it just a personal perjorative opinion. Equivalent to "very bad". Also, terrorism does not have to be against civilians. For example, one definition of terrorism states "Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime" which includes certain military targets. So no agreement even on this. The state terrorism article describes the problems with the concept.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name four definitions presented by non-online sources. You make an accusation and something tells me you are making it up, before I make an accusation however I will afford you the opportunity to tells us all four of those definitions in offline sources. For you to go one further and state that "state terrorism" is the equivalent of "very bad" is a pretty silly argument, what you are alleging is the United States government places entire countries on a list, blocks trade with them, enlists embargo's just because they are "very bad" with no clear definition or understanding of what they are saying. I think common sense in this case has defeated your argument. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will have no problem finding four very different definitions in Definition of terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and that is why we do not use the term "terrorism" in Wikipedia? You have again proven yourself wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we do no have articles called "Terrorism by Hamas" etc. We mention specific allegations of terrorism by specific actors in the Hamas article, for example. As it should be. No reason to treat the US worse than Hamas.Ultramarine (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, how can we possible say Hamas committed terrorism if there is no agreed upon legal definition of it? Perhaps because its understood what terrorism is, and everyone making the accusation does not need to have the exact same definition in mind. Again, you have proven yourself wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not in fact say that "Hamas committed terrorism". Instead formulations such as "x designates Hamas as a terrorist group" etc. None of this in a special article. There are no articles called Terrorism by Hamas, IRA, ETA etc. Why is the US treated worse? Ultramarine (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, poor poor pooor picked on United States! it seems equally likeley that we dont (yet) have a "Terrorism by Hamas" article because terrorism is already covered 'within' the Hamas article. As the Hamas article grows and RS material accumulates it is possible that a point will come that a spin off article is created to cover that topic in depth, just as "State Terrorism by the US" is a spin off article on the US.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because such article names are not allowed by policy. See [4] There is very little in the article now discussed that are actually allegation of US state terrorism. See [5]. Those few remaining could be mentioned in a foreign policy article. No reason for treating the US worse than Hamas and IRA.Ultramarine (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) You have again proven me right. By the fact that we have sources that are accepted that state an event is terrorism, and we then take those WP:RS sources and restate what they say, is proof that no universally accepted definition is required for us to report what the sources that meet our policies are stating. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there are various sensationalist authors using the term "state terrorism". No reason to treat the US worse than Hamas, IRA, ETA etc and create a separate article for these allegations.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following your line of reasoning you would move this content into the United States article, so its no worse, and certaintly no better, since we are not biased on Wikipedia, then Hamas or the IRA. Create a section in the US article titled "Militancy and terrorism" and let me know how that works out for you. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote earlier. " There is very little in the article now discussed that are actually allegation of US state terrorism. See [6]. Those few remaining could be mentioned in a foreign policy article. No reason for treating the US worse than Hamas and IRA."Ultramarine (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment Ultramarine has previously (and frequently) made the statement "anonymous editors" "[dump] ... all sorts of US criticisms not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism" and has yet to show that this has even happened, much less that such unsourced items/vandalism have remained in the article for long. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False. See [7]. Lots of quotes by for example Amnesty anjd Human Rights Watch not accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YEE HAW!!!! The DEAD HORSE makes yet another appearance! See any number of the refutations of this claim on the talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems this has been done to death already: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] When will people get the message that it is better to just work on fixing the article, instead of renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion. Oddly the people voting delete are the ones responsible for its recent name change and band wagon deletion nomination. It is almost humorous that JTrainer would allege there is a cabal protecting the article, when the only constant is the names of people supporting the deletion and renaming of the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong about a lot; renaming it to its most contentious title, then nominating for deletion for starters. Still, we look forward to you living up to your words and actually helping to fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great points and arguments, "your wrong" is always so persuasive. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV allegations and article problems aside, is this topic notable enough for inclusion in our encyclopedia? Definitely. If there's no doubt about this, should its deletion be discussed here? Definitely not. Plrk (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many of the editors who vote to delete have been guilty of vandalism, deleting large well referenced sections of the article which doesn't meet their own POV. I am frustrated at pretty must every editor in this article, but I think this article belongs on wikipedia. If history is any guide, this AfD will end up "keep" by no consensus, and then this same group of editors, angry at the failed AfD, will continue to vandalize the page, deleting large well referenced sections they disagree with. See you all at the next Afd. Trav (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has seen massive improvements, sources prove importance. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that this is a frivolous nomination by a party on a crusade against controversial articles: [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. I'd also suggest we delete Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka for the same reasons. Wikipedia is not the place to publish allegations, regardless of how well sourced. It is totally, utterly, unencyclopedic to do so. Creating articles based upon "allegations" of this or that will nearly always be a WP:COAT or POV issue. BWH76 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable social discourse (see comment below). How should this social discourse be represented in an NPOV manner here on wikipedia? One thing is certain, one can't pretend to legitimately represent it without having first done sufficient legwork to understand the themes discussed in the literature.BernardL (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although practically all editors attempting to delete the article have yet to evidence significant knowledge of the relevant literature, it nevertheless exists and does testify to the fact that this is a notable social discourse. Wikipedia looks very bad if it systematically tries to suppress such a discourse. There was recently a heavy-handed mass deletion of material, amongst which was considerable material from numerous reliable sources who uncontroversially describe in the course of their analysis significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism. Some of these sources are among the leading authorities on particular phenomena associated with the subject. Any article on the subject sincerely trying to educate readers would do well to take into consideration material from these experts. Justifications for the massive nuke job have been extremely feeble, saying that the issue of size necessitated all that abrupt removal. There were indeed viable alternatives to the totalitarian approach reactively adopted by William Connelly. What follows is a partial list of sources used in the article prior to this illegitimate deletion, there remain far more numerous reliable sources who have not made it into the article:
Richard Falk, Emeritus Prof International Law, Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories
Mark Selden, Bartle Prof of Sociology and History and Binghamton
Arno Mayer, Prof of History at Princeton, one of the world’s renowned experts in Holocaust Studies.
Jorge I. Dominguez, Prof of International Affairs, Harvard
Greg Grandin, Prof of History, New York University, member of the Guatemalan Truth Commission team.
J. Patrice McSherry, Professor of Political Science, Long Island University
Michael Stohl, currently professor of Communications at UCSB, a world renowned terrorism expert who has made a significant impact in the field.
Stephen Rabe, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Michael McClintock, researcher and director for Amnesty International, for almost 20 years.
Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)
Paul Farmer , Presley Professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard University
Clara Nieto, Colombian writer and former diplomat in the Colombian mission to the United Nations, and as Latin American regional director for UNESCO.
Michael Walzer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed professor of International Relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of Sussex,
Raúl Molina-Mejía is Adjunct Associate Professor of History at Long Island University
Cynthia Arnson director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Cecilia Menjívar, Ph.D. Cowden Distinguished Associate Professor. School of Social and Family Dynamics. Program in Sociology. Arizona State University
Nestor Rodriguez, Professor and Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of Houston.BernardL (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep See Bigtimepeace's comments for the most insightful analysis of the situation. The article currently exists in two oscillating forms, each over-zealously defended by groups of editors. One group wants accusations against the US aired in utmost detail, the other group wants them minimised or gone. One form the article takes is a laundry list of accusations of US terrorism. That form needs summarising and perhaps some trimming of sources, but it is not "an embaressment to wikipedia". It's just a typical over-verbose wikipedia article with mostly decent content but poor editing. The other form the article takes is a cut-back version that is also not well summarised with some sections that include notable accusations removed. This form needs fleshing out with summarised content from the other form. However, this second form is not an "embaressment to wikipedia" either. Neither of the current forms is terribly biased or POV, it's the editing that's embarressing (especially the never-ending revert war that prevents constructive editing) and most wikipedia readers probably never notice the editing. The article is a battleground in a nationalistic edit war, but the actual content is just average wikipedia stuff. It doesn't need deleting, it needs to have all the reverting stopped somehow so that each section can be discussed in the talk page until consensus is reached. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, this article is absolutely not a WP:COATRACK. A coatrack is when the apparent topic of the article is undermined by another topic in the content. The apparent topic of this article is accusations of US terrorism. The "coat" hung over this is what? More accusations of US terrorism. That's pretty inflammatory to some US people. But it's not a lurking theme, it contains exactly what it says on the box.--Ryan Paddy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMG keep - who cares that this article is a blatant POV push job? Indeed, a lot of people who edit this article and vote here clearly agree with the sentiments described therein, so the NPOV guidelines be damned. After all, as many have said, this is clearly a bad faith nomination (as one person said, "vandalism"), despite the fact it was made by an Englishman, and other non-American (liberal even) long time users are calling for delete. Why should we pay attention to WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK when it's notable? Thank God for all the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PER, etc. to help state this is a clear keep. Like one user said, "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" - if you don't like the fact this is clearly a biased article and violates our core policies (and always has and always will), you can just ignore it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our core policies are notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Accusations of terrorism between notable nations is a notable phenomenon, verifiable by reliable sources; in no way does it even come remotely close to violating those core policies. Regarding the only other things, COATRACKS are articles that deals with something other than the subject in such a way as to make it appear that the subject is being discussed but the article is in reality about something else; the subject is clearly discussed in its article, and an WP:NPOV issue is a problem that should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Please read the top of the AfD page. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I would encouraged none of you to actually look at the article history or make sure that the POV stays out of the article after your "strong keep - it can be fixed despite the overwhelming precedent" arguments. After all, there's no responsibility for you to make such a claim when it has been made 7 times before to no avail, and then to uphold it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want to have a look at the RfC process or perhaps the third opinion pages. Those are how problems with POV are dealt with when they can't be resolved by the regular editors of that page. Celarnor Talk to me 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. I wonder if all of us claiming that "State terrorism by [insert country name here]" articles would not be inherently biased would be so forgiving about an article titled Accusations that liberal appeasement leads to terrorism? After all, I truly doubt this should be a redlink, given the precedents we've all set here... The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that article. I wouldn't agree with its contents, but I think that's a fairly notable cultural phenomenon as well. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The NPOV guidelines clearly state that facts about opinions are valid content. That's what this article consists of, facts about political opinions - many of which are from notable scholars, as listed by BernardL. The article does not state or imply that these opinions are correct - that would be a "POV push job", this is not. The warning tags are correct in the sense that the neutrality is disputed by some editors. But those editors are incorrect, the article is largely neutral and I imagine it is the overall idea of discussing US terrorism that they find objectionable. That's why deleting this article would be a clear case of censorship. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The subject matter is arguably notable, but in terms of content this still is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I doubt deleting it and starting over would achieve anything useful; it's just going to have to be gradually fixed, as I know many people have been trying to do for some time. I'm not optimistic about this article, but I suppose even a bad article on the subject is better than none. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, bad faith nomination as part of a WP:POINT crusade against controversy/allegation articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor into a list, based on the ToC. Unless a delete is salted, this will come back. As such, it will never be better than a coatrack for all sorts of polemics, so if individual allegations/incidents (or sets thereof) can stand as articles by themselves, this page can be the collector. Who knows, it might then become a category. But an article is ridiculous, because the subject is limitless. rudra (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation as a fully-protected stub for expansion, where all edits are discussed before addition. This article (with its long, divisive history) is one of the worst flashpoints on Wikipedia. While I am ambivalent about the possibility of creating a policy-compliant article on the topic, I am quite sure that in its current form, this isn't it. What we currently have is nothing more than a laundry list of grievances from many sources, some of which totally lack any form of reliability (my personal favorite is the Indymedia San Francisco article supporting the reference to some non-notable group in "The Hague, Belgium", in the Philippines section); I also found links to blogs and to personal websites to columnists with no qualifications in the field of international relations/international law. Horologium (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

  • Сomment Mr. Roger's acronym for today is Coatrack, pronounced, Coa-track, Coatrack is an essay (not a policy or guideline), which is irrelevent to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States but a lot of "deletionist" seemed to have embraced anyway in the latest failed AfD.Inclusionist (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I'm surprised this this is still up: it's an obvious speedy keep and a POV, bad faith Afd (either that or they really are ignorant of WP policy). Either way, its noteworthy that none of the arguments to delete hold up. They are either 100% false, as has been shown, or they are not based on policy. It's also relevant to note, as others have pointed out, the same editors who are want to delete it, do so after getting getting rid of the the articles best sources, purging it of its value (to make it look less notable and less referenced?)--all in the name of "fixing the article"--while here they show they don't want to fix it, they want it gone. Seems like they want it both ways. As BernardL, above, points just some of the impeccable sources that were deleted, all making explicit claims supporting the subject matter. I understand nationalism and jingoism but WP is not censored, so this is not a place to allow such emotive feelings to get the better of us. We report factually encyclopedic knowledge that elucidates, educations, and expands our horizons. Those who find this incompatible with their faith system (faith that the US has not engaged in state terrorism repeatedly) should simply not edit here. WP policies and rules are paramount.

This delete attempt like the many others before are raise serious issues: Will WP be censored or be a real place of learning? Instead of arguing with these editor about deleting, we should be instead talking about promoting this article to Featured Status. We were getting close to that before they came in to disrupt it again. We have some of the best sources possible, mostly academic journal from top professors in their field, as BernardL, has shown.

  • Let me give some examples of deleted material, on the false claims that they are either not good sources or they are not related to State Terrorism. Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,' writs that, 'Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror...” The region has been one of the focal points of the literature on state terrorism. Sluka states that “at the end of the 1970’s, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of the existence of a new global “epidemic” of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. “sphere of influence,” and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the United States client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 8). Likewise, the contributions of Michael McClintock, former senior researcher at Amnesty International, have been cited as among the pioneering works about state terrorism in Latin America. (McSherry, Patrice J. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 15-17). McClintock is notable for making the connection between state terrorist practice in Guatemala with previous practices by counterinsurgency forces in Vietnam and the Philippines. Various analysts have charged that the U.S. is significantly complicit in terror regimes in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, and Colombia, citing mainstream human rights organizations such as AI material and Human Rights Watch that these scholars analyze as descriptions of politically motivated campaigns of violence and terror by the powerful over the poor. They either assign major complicity if not outright blame directly on US policies. Is this material relevant and topical, is it notable? This is without question that case, despite those who want to see this forever buried along with its many victims.

Whole sections are wiped out. Never mind that we have top sources that say, for example that the US atomic bombings of Japan represent "the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th century."[1][2]

If we disagree that is fine, but its not relevant. What is relevant is that we have many top scholars who make this argument. Yet, they deleted entire sections that were very well referenced, balanced, notable, and on topic on the basis that they don't personally agree with what is being said. I do not exaggerate this point. So now they want to delete the article and change the subject because they don't personally agree with it. Again, nice to know, but its not policy. It has no basis on WP editing protocol.

Historian Howard Zinn writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is this a valid source, topical, relevant, and notable? Sure but its deleted.

Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."[3] Deleted.

Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention.[4] He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."[5] Another impeccable source. But since the POV editors don't personally agree with these professors, they delete them.

Mark Selden, professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and author of War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[6] Guess what? Deleted.

Richard A. Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He writes "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety."[7]. He also writes (but it was deleted, too):

Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy.

— Richard Falk, War and State Terrorism[7]
Despite all this quite valid material, and much more, nothing was allowed to remain--not a single word about this being an instance of State terrorism, because these conservative POV warriors don't agree with it. Blanking half the article, really amounts to a form of vandalism in my view. This continued AfD attempts are just a variation of the same.

I could go on, but you get the point. There was balancing material added, of course, it was trimmed down, as requested, and added with consensus. So what happens? They come back and this time delete it because they say its too small. They delete other sections because they say its too big. Any baseless argument will do as long as this information is suppressed, censored. Well, this is not going to happen, not in wikipedia. I think they must have confused this place with Conservopedia. In this place we have standard and respect knowledge. This place is trying to be a real encylopedia that is not afraid to engage in subjects that are uncomfortable, or controversial--we report and document all notable knowledge about the world around us. That is what an encylopedia is all about. At least any good one.

  • That is what is at stake here: Is WP to be a US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade, where criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims? No. I prefer we be a genuine encyclopedia, and this article is in its best tradition. That is why I think it also matters that editors working on it should have an extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject under their belt. The fact that many don't explains a lot about the continued bickering. If they would just do a little studying on the topic, and check their personal biases at the door, we'd be a lot better off content wise. In the mean while its clearly a KEEP KEEP KEEP.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope you don't think that most of what you said there was a valid argument. Not only did you accuse others of being biased while shamelessly demonstrating your own, but you continue here to cherrypick facts that support your conclusions. In fact, one of the same problems with this article as your rant here is that while much of the article is sourced, it in many cases sources opinions, not neutral studies or statistics. And while there is an argument that this is valid in an article discussing allegations, then I don't think the article is properly arranged at all. It should not be split into sections by event, but by the commentator making the allegations. For example, Chomsky could have a section (which I'm sure would thrill you). All that is why I above voted delete. I have no prejudice against recreation, but I think that this article in its present form is not a net positive for the encyclopedia. Also, you may want to check out WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Random89 07:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do think its valid, but there is more than one argument there. I comment on the nature of this AfD, the basis for it, why its a bad faith nom, all stemming from the problems the article suffers--not because it is not notable, not well referenced but because its too well referenced, too notable, and a very hot political potato that it seems some editors can't check their emotional reactions at the door. Its as if there is a blind spot, and one is no longer dealing with trying to write an informative encylopedia article but pov pushing. So yes, its primarily a problem of editors, not the article. And, yes, its primarily (but not exclusively) by the conservative editors who want the information suppressed, deleted. If not for this, it could be a featured article soon. About bias, yes, I think we are all have bias, but I argue that we need to check that at the door, and abide by WP policies and guidelines instead of suppressing information simply because one does not share the POV being expressed. This is not a straw man, either: its the actual arguments used on the talk page: the source says X, but "I think they are wrong, its my view that it is not state terrorism...delete!" That is silly and not following policy. Its putting ones POV and emotion in place of policies and rationality. The same thing is going on with this, yet another, AfD. That is why it should be a speedy keep and dismissed. Its nonsense. Now, I agree with your other points. The article needs work, particularly with more neutral studies, overviews that better explain the nature of state terrorism, and the US role in it. But, those excellent sources by Human Rights Watch on Guatemala, for example were deleted, too. I also agree the article is not necessarily properly organized; some sections are too long. The Japan section was not one of those but they reduced it to nothing. Organizing by commentator instead of area, is an idea that should be discussed on the talk page. I'm open to all ideas from all POV's, provided that consensus is respected, and WP policies are followed. The problem is that we have a group of editors who do neither, and this AfD is an extension of that. We need admins enforcing these policies and be examples of proper conduct, not the opposite, which is what we have seen with the recent mass deletions, and abusive conduct there against editors they are in conflict with. They made things worse, not better. The article was doing fine and making much progress (not that all change is always a step forward), but it was improving, slowly but surely. Its things like this, and the recent attacks on much of best sourced material in an attempt to get rid of it all that puts a stop to progress since then the article gets locked.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Giovanni, you're the last person who should be accusing anyone of abusive editing, given your history of incivility and personal attacks on poor Ultramarine and anyone else who attempts to improve this garbage heap masquerading as an article. Jtrainor (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThat is quite false. Diffs to support any of your claims, I wonder? I'd be very interested to see it. And, yes, thank you for confirming what you think of valid sourced material that you don't personally agree with politically. You simply call it names. Very weak argument you have there.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this an AfD or an article talk page?Nick Connolly (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rationel for deletion given by the nominator is very poor. If an article is POV, off topic ect it needs to be edited not deleted. Other claims that these are allegations and not truth need to brush up on their wiki rules. Indeed all of wikipedia's articles are either allegations or collections of claims. Wikipedia editors are not here to try to prove anything weather it be true or false. We just say what other say and since this article is notable and is well backed by reference it should stay. Watchdogb (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, the article being an apparent warzone isn't grounds to delete it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although this article belongs to Anti-Americanism, one should not be offended by its existence. It merely describes opinions existing in the world. Biophys (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Only the glaring systematic bias of Wikipedia's US-centric contributors would let this AfD go on as far as it has. Celarnor Talk to me 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWow, this is pretty amazing to read. I am unhappy to hear Wikipedia has this problem about keeping this article. Why is there this kind of debate? Of course this article should remain. I am sure it has problems but that can be fixed. I do not see any good points by those who want to delete it. I am familiar with the topic and there is a great deal of academic, high quality material that elaborates on this subject.DrGabriela (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete without prejudice to recreation. Notability is not a suicide pact to keep atrocious articles and I seriously distressed to see it used in such a fashion more and more often. Notability simply says that that this topic is notable for inclusion. It does not indicate that we need to keep articles that are in such a dire state as to be nearly unsalvageable. I don't think anyone is disputing that the topic is notable. Arguments to keep based purely upon notability ignore the arguments being made for deletion. Making notability the be-all end-all for keeping an article not only flies in the face of good sense, but also runs contrary to multiple principles and policies (as an easy example, WP:NOT). Vassyana (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsalvageable is an opinion, and a wrong one. A suicide pact is deleting articles to eliminate conflicts. The only issue with any article that cannot be dealt with by editing is lack of intrinsic notability, and no one is claiming that here. POV, BLP, UNDUE, and similar issues can, and have been fixed by editing. The primary problem with this article is that it's a war zone. And that can be managed also, with blocking, protection, RfC, and mediation. Deleting will just result in a new battle once it's recreated, in the same or new form. Needs improvement is not a policy based reason to delete, per WP:DP. — Becksguy (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana, you haven't given a reason for deletion. Just calling it "atrocious" could mean anything. What do you think is atrocious about it? --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - An above user said delete without prejudice to recreation? That would be the same as continued editing. The only people who seem to want to delete it a Pro-America Misinformation mongers. This article not only should exist, it needs to exist. Hooper (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note the large amount of incivility and lack of good faith towards the nom. Jtrainor (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ this makes me laugh! funny! GundamsЯus (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go do something useful instead of wikistalking me and inserting your unwanted two cents wherever I go? Jtrainor (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with following the edits of other editors. I monitor the edits of quite a few editors whom I don't believe entirely understand what AfD is for in order that their arguments can be properly refuted. Contribution logs are public for good reason. Celarnor Talk to me 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as well as a lot of bad faith regarding the editors of the article, belittling their contributions to the article. Hopefully this can be closed soon, and the increased emotions will subside. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason politics is not suitable for dinner table conversation. People feel very strongly about politics, and especially politics that relate to patriotism, or the lack of it, depending on one's POV. It's sometimes very difficult to leave emotions at the editing door, despite that being the goal. The good news is that usually these battles run their course and subside for a period. There seems to be a consensus developing for the need for mediation, and that's hopeful. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good faith in the nomination of multiple, obviously notable articles with rationale who only points to minor problems solvable by regular editing processes. Celarnor Talk to me 04:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break[edit]

Comment I see a lot of comments advocating Keep with arguments such as "notable topic" or "lots of reliable sources" or even delving into the motivations of the nominator. I fear they haven't acutally read the rationale. This is not an deletion discussion about the topic, rather it's about the state of the article as it stands today and the type of material it includes. "State Terrorism" and "State Terrorism by the United States" (or pick your title du jour) are indeed notable topics. Unfortunately, this article doesn't include the topics of note. Rather it is a collection of synthesized views, original research, and unscholarly opinion. It doesn't present any of these topics in a neutral manner. Seeing the 100 or so people that commented on the AfD and the relatively small number of SPA editors that perpetually keep the article in this pathetic state, it's sad to see so little progress. In short, it is a notable topic with an awful article. Considering that it attempts to portray approximately 300 million Living People in such light, I would ask that readers rethink their keep in view of this article, not this topic. --DHeyward (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Because articles are freely editable, the current version of the article doesn't matter any more than the article twenty revisions ago. I could go right now and change something in the article; if I did that, considering your rationale, would the AfD still be valid, considering that the revision that existed when it was brought up is no longer the current revision. Notability and verifiability are all that matter. If a subject can't be verified, then it doesn't have a place here. If a subject is verifiable but not notable, it doesn't have a place here. Deletion is an extreme last resort that is fallen back upon when there's no other way to fix something. Since there are other things that can be done to fix this article, deletion doesn't apply. See BEFORE and DEL for more information. Celarnor Talk to me 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right up to the point where you claim that the article is about all 300 million Americans. If I were to tell you that the actions of the Rote Armee Fraktion were nothing short of state terrorism carried out with the full support of the DDR would I be wrong? Hell no. Indeed, claiming the opposite would be white washing. Does that label all citizens of the DDR as guilty? No it does not. This should be stubbed and reworked and the article put on probation asap but it shouldn't be deleted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to edit. I have tried. You mention "other things that can be done" but this article has had tags for a year without progress. Since it can't be made to meet Notability and verifiability it should be deleted and started over with stronger rules for contribution. Lot's of people have weighed in with their opinion every time this article comes up, but not many have tried to improve it since the last AfD. Deletion and stubbing are done all the time for articles that aren't being presented neutrally, with notable information or with verifiable information. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, the vast majority of your contributions to this article: 99%, have been deletions, as have been all of the other editors who don't want this article to exist. In over two years, I think Ultramarine is the only "deletionist" (person who wants this article deleted) who added a single reference. Two years, 50 or more "deletionist" editors, and only one editor who added a single reference. What does that say about the "deletionist" real intentions?
After years of editing this article I see there is no compromise with those who want to delete this article: either the article exists, which will cause friction, or it will cease to exist, which, based on your edit history on this article, I see is your single end goal.
You can use as many policy acronyms as you want to justify deleting this article, and lord knows every acronym policy has been trotted out as an excuse to delete this article, but the bottom line is the same: the "deletionist" will not be satisfied until this article ceases to exist.
A parallel argument which you have been deeply involved with has been deleting all of the alternative 9/11 articles. Morton Devonshire, someone you worked closely in tandem with for years, left the project because his work was done, which he described as deleting all alternative theory articles of 9/11. Now to focus solely on articles which paint America in a bad light. Same tactics, same acronyms, same lack of contribution to the article.
I wish Wikipedians would be more tolerant of alternative views. Inclusionist (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the "alternative views" encyclopedia. I am not tolerant of poorly sourced and unsourced material. Neither are you very tolerant of very well sourced criticism of Noam Chomsky or the conspiracy theorists. I have no opinion about the subject and am open to having an article that is well sourced and free from WP:SYN, WP:OR and the like. As for Morton, I am no more linked to him than you are to Rootology --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHeyward, your edit history shows that you want all alternative views of 9/11 and many views of the US removed from wikipedia.
I disagree with your characterization. This is were we differ: I have no problem with well sourced criticisms of conspiracy theories and Noam Chomsky. I feel like these sources belong on wikipedia. I have no made a coordinated attack on Criticism of Naom Chomsky in an attempt to get it deleted, because I think there are valid criticisms, even if I personally disagree with them.
I find it ironic that you label me a "time waster", when I am only attempting to keep well referenced content on wikipedia, whereas a large part of your edits is an attempt to delete these views.
Again, I think 99.9% of 9/11 alternative views are rubbish, but a significant portion of the worlds population subscribe to these views, making them relevant, so I tolerate their inclusion. I wish you spent as much time adding alternative counter views to these pages as you do deleting them.
I strongly doubt Rootology and Morton are really gone. Inclusionist (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, these delete votes and arguments look like a case of destroying the village to save it. Remember the Vietnam conflict? The real problem is that the article is a contentious battleground over content, and deleting it is not going to make that go away. If deleted, it will be recreated, in one form or another, with eventually the same issues. The solution is to lock the article, or place it on probation, and block contentious and edit waring editors, and then work on the individual section/events/claims one by one until consensus can be achieved. The official policy (not guideline or essay) on deletion, from WP:DP says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. WP:DP also says, as policy: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page [emphasis mine] which is key in this whole discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becksguy, this actually worked. Ingenious editors blocked this article for most of the summer. I think the solution is an Arbcom, which is way overdue.
Becksguy:
The solution is to lock the article, or place it on probation, and block contentious and edit waring editors, and then work on the individual section/events/claims one by one until consensus can be achieved.
It has been tried, please read the archives. Myself and others led a section by section negotiation, with a third party. It was blatantly ignored by both sides. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very convincing argument, and also untrue. Even if true, those are not valid reasons to delete, those are valid reasons to improve, per WP:DP, see above. — Becksguy (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The policies I cited are both true and valid reasons to delete. It does not seem possible to improve the article as an alternative since the soapy synthesis is inherent in the putative topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why an objective article outlining allegations of a crime by an entity isn't possible? Celarnor Talk to me 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible because neither the crimes nor the criminal are well-defined. For example, if I were to write upon this theme, I would be inclined to start at the beginning by detailing the way in which the revolutionary patriots of the nascent USA terrorised the tories who were loyal to the British crown. But conflating this with the matter of the Bay of Pigs or the treatment of the Red Indians or the A-bombing of Japan, etc must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space. Now, the prejudice which sees these matters as a continuum is worthy of an article and I expect that we have such articles at Anti-Americanism, Liberal guilt and the like. Such articles will cover the folk who make such allegations. The specific incidents are covered by specific articles. If there's a need for one or more articles to link such stuff together then they would be articles like History of the USA or Foreign policy of the USA in the 20th Century. Putting the word terrorism in the title is begging the question and so isn't NPOV.
Hold on. I'm sure I remember some rule for the distant past that CW and I are obliged to be on different sides of any given dispute. Something is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scary part is once you realize that you're on the same side, that there is still another side. --DHeyward (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems the nom and delete camp have an argument that boils down to something like "this article is on a notable subject but difficult to maintain." If we are going to delete this article, we might as well do a sweeping delete of most of our political and religious articles as well, although, this would seem like censorship, wouldn't it? If we can feature Islam then we have the ability to maintain and build this article. Also, if the subject is notable, then a recreation is inevitable, and the chances of it being any better than this one, which has undergone a lot of revision, are slim. aliasd·U·T 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Alaisd, the Islam article is not focused on criticism of the faith. You're comparison isn't correct. This isn't, for example, a page on the US with a section on state terrorism - it's an article devoted to allegations of it. It would be like an article for "Allegations of human rights abuses carried out due to Islam" or something. John Smith's (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i jumped around a bit there. What I meant there was if we can feature an article that deals with a widely contentious topic, then we can most certainly maintain this one to a reasonable quality. aliasd·U·T 09:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually criticism is not what this article is about, per se. It's about representing a discussion of the terrorology literature of State Terrorism that involves the US. It discusses the various allegations of this type of State behavior within the global system of international relations. And it does so embracing all points of view, critical or not. Inclusion is based on notable expert opinion of authorities within this field of research--a growing field I might add. So, its your comparison is not correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really nice if we had an article "Allegations of human rights abuses carried out due to Islam." Unfortunately we only have "Islamic terrorism", indicating that the allegation that Islam preaches terror is a fact not an allegation.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic capable of being built into a suitable article which may even be amongst Wikipedia's finest one day. My general notion in these things is not to delete what an article improvement drive could fix unproblematically. Orderinchaos 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is awful, biased, and unsalvagable. Delete with no recreation.Wtbe7560 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Awful", "biased", and "unsalvagable" - all of your claims are untrue. You need to prove why you are appyling these adjectives in this article. And also if any of the claim is true, that is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for editing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"unsalvagable" meaning this article has been reworked, reworked again, over and over and over. What have we got? A big steaming pile of Wikipedia crap. If you can't see the problem with this article then you're part of said problem. Delete it already and move on. Wtbe7560 (talk)
because Wikipedia is the 'encyclopedia of only articles that are easy to write'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:DE which is a official policy - "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page". Your suggestion to delete the article to solve problem is not constructive suggestion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unsalvagable? How is it biased? What makes it awful? Why are the things that make it awful and biased unsalvagable through the process of regular editing? These aren't constructive comments. Celarnor Talk to me 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point Otolemur, which undermines the majority of the arguments here. Not that this will stop anyone, mind you. The underlying reason for the deletion has always been the same. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think most editors agree that it's a notable topic, the subject of numerous reliable sources, the target of much vandalism, and a POV magnet. Therefore, I vote Keep and cleanup, or Delete and start again, or Stubify—I honestly don't mind which. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, easy to say when you haven't dedicated years to maintaining (i.e. protecting the article from "deletionists") and adding new sections. Inclusionist (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for AfD is to solicit comments from editors who aren't dedicated to the article in question. Lots of people feel strongly about this, and they do not agree. So, I'm sorry if what I said hurt your feelings; I was just trying to sum up how I see the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have followed this AfD with interest. I previously voiced my opinion that this should be deleted - if anything, I would change that to strong delete at this point (and include the other articles on "allegations of state supported terrorism" as I mentioned above). Wikipedia is not the place to base an article on allegations, regardless of how well sourced they may be. Doing so is unencyclopedic. The sources that support this article confuse the situation. I know this will sound like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we don't have articles titled "allegations that the US is a bad country," "allegations that Iran has bad food," "allegations that Brazil supports bad musicians." Each of these could be well-sourced, may be notable, and may be popular discussion topics. Why don't we have them on Wikipedia? Because these are all subjective - as is the term "state sponsored terrorism". Without a widely accepted, non-controversial definition of this term, it is impossible to create a neutral POV article on this topic. Each allegation of "state-supported terrorism" illustrated in these articles can be covered within the context of the main articles themselves - creating a separate article to deal with these allegations as a whole is pushing a POV and is essentially a WP:SOAP. This is why I think we need to delete this article as well as Allegations of state terrorism by Iran, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. BWH76 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the term "state sponsored terrorism" is not any more subjective than many terms used in legal/political/cultural arenas, or even here on WP. Terms like art, obscenity, encyclopedic, significant coverage, neutral are all subjective to some extent. Having an article in Wikipedia is not inherently POV, otherwise, there would need to be pairs of articles, one for each side of a subject (assuming that there are only two sides to each subject, often not true). Do we need articles entitled Allegations of not committing state terrorism by <nation> for balance? The word "Allegations" was restored to the title for increased NPOV and to conform to other similar articles. We make each article as NPOV as possible within the article, not across articles. From WP:NPOV: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". — Becksguy (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Nominator's main justification is their perception that the article has been subverted by POV-pushers. But the deletion policies are clear on this. A perception that an article has a POV problem is not grounds for deletion. There is no topic that cannot be covered from a neutral point of view, if contributors make enough effort. I see an active talk page here. I see an article with a lot of references. If someone thinks the references aren't good references, then challenge the references on the talk page. If someone thinks the references aren't being characterized accurately or from a neutral point of view, than challenge that on the talk page. I couldn't help noticing that the there is no sign, in the last 1500 edits to the talk page, of the nominator making any effort to discuss their concerns prior to their nomination. Please, don't do that. Please make an effort to raise your concerns first on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can understand the frustrations many editors have had with this article, and I have them also. And I think that there are emotional involvements here, as this is a sensitive subject, as well as a politicized and controversial one. But to nominate an article for deletion because of content disputes is against policy, per WP:DP, in which it says: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Therefore the effect of this nomination is disruptive, especially following on seven AfDs in which the article was kept, and does not help the article. As I said before, to argue for deletion looks like a case of destroying the village to save it. No one disputes that the subject is notable, and there are loads of reliable sources for notability and verifiability, about 238 references when the article was much longer. If there are WP:POV issues, or any of the other issues raised in the nomination, which I don't see, then consensus edit them, per policy, rather than delete. The only serious issue I see is that it's a battleground with edit wars preventing the article from being stabilized and improved. — Becksguy (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - balance issues are pervasive and unavoidable, due to the pov nature of the article title. On its face, it violates NPOV, Notability and undue weight concerns.
As well, it attracts those who are unaware that state action and terrorism are significantly different; therefore the likelihood of uncited or unreliable text is exceptionally high, thus turning the article and article discussion into a battleground of WP:COATRACK ideology, and not actual facts.
User:Scepter is correct that this represents a WP:HOPELESS issue; the article is flawed from the very title. It should be deleted and stubbed with a more appropriate title so as to attract a less frothing-at-the-mouth, OWN-ish sort of editing. The article cannot - as proponents have insistently argued be "fixed", as the very title attracts pov warriors who simply refuse to see the paucity of neutral and reliable sources - after all, the article reflects their own pov, so how can it not be neutral?
The subject is notable; the approach is not, and is actually a clusterfuck from soup to nuts. Annihilate it, rename it and start over. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interesting view. Are you able to provide supporting evidence for your assertion that "state action and terrorism are significantly different"? A whole lot of articles will have to be renamed or deleted if you can provide credible evidence, rather than this just being your own opinion. --John (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I sure can, though most of it I already noted in the NOR policy discussion page. To paraphrase that post, the difference is that:
states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct. Such self-sanction (ie, moral justification), says Albert Bandura (in his book, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, as reprinted in Origins of Terrorism, ed. by Walter Reich) is what differentiates the terrorist from a state; the state has internal repercussions for the violation of these rules and codes of conduct, whereas the non-state actor does not..."Terrorists deliberately cloak themselves and their acts in military jargon, so as to lend themselves an air of legitimacy afforded state or wartime actions." (Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism).
Is that what you were looking for? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really clarify things for me. "states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct" assumes that 'states' will always obey certain "rules of war" - and history teaches us that that assumption is faulty. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I was asked to provide citations to support the assertion that "state action and terrorism are significantly different", and I did, from verifiable, reliable and notable sources, which I have done. Your speculation as to how the you choose to dismiss or accept those terms is rather outside the purview of this AfD. For good or ill, your view on how recognized experts in the field have it all wrong cannot be used to rebut their citable statements. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal. 18.
  2. ^ Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History. 19 (2).
  3. ^ Walzer, Michael (2002). "Five Questions About Terrorism" (PDF). Dissent Magazine. 49 (1). Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved 2007-07-11.
  4. ^ "Professor Tony Coady". Retrieved 2008-01-30.
  5. ^ Coady, Tony (June 2004). Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World. Melbourne University Publishing. pp. XV. ISBN 0-52285049-9.
  6. ^ Selden, Mark (2002-09-09). "Terrorism Before and After 9-11". Znet. Retrieved 2008-01-30.
  7. ^ a b Falk, Richard. "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law",in Selden,, Mark, editor (November 28, 2003). War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742523913. ,45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&oldid=1220797103"