text:
Talk:State terrorism/Archive 1

Misc
"State sponsored terrorism" is redirected to "State terrorism". But these are different things. The name "state terrorism" is only applied to actions openly performed by the representatives of a state. "State sponsored terrorism" refers to actions performed by terrorist groups which receive support, overt or covert, from a state, but which are not officially representatives of that state. Mporter 4 Dec 2004 (AEST)

The list looked fine to me. When you say it's "not true" do you mean that Michael Moore didn't really give that list in Bowling for Columbine? This information should certainly be somewhere, and this looks like a good place for it. Anthony DiPierro 22:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I mean the list items are not true. I don't see why this stupid list should be anywhere at all, and if there's any place it should be Michael Moore's paranoid fantasies (okay, fine, it can go under just Michael Moore). -- VV 22:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Michael Moore has a large following. In fact, this list could be good way to introduce the large discrepencies over what people consider "state terrorism." Anthony DiPierro 23:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see that his large following is relevant, unless it's 100%, in which case it could be NPOV. The list is fiction, and the paranoid ramblings of one individual do not belong on this page. -- VV 02:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The paranoid ramblings of one individual which are agreed to by a large following do belong on this page. Anthony DiPierro 16:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Why? Would Adolf Hitler's accusations against Jews belong on this page?  He had a large following.  So did Trotsky.  An encyclopedic article on state terrorism should not just include garbage spewed by any somewhat successful propagandist.  It may need examples, but they should be clear and illustrative and accurate, not fictions and distortions. -- VV 20:39, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If Hitler accused the Jews of state terrorism it definitely belongs on this page. Anthony DiPierro 21:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good that the list is recovered, censorship don't have a place in an encyclopedia !

Please stop with general statements as the list if fiction or assuming paranoid !! a short inspection of the list shows that they make a clear factual case of state terrorism and obviously, an article about state terrorism needs to have examples.

And, What part of the list is untrue? A short inspection shows that the case of Chile is true, please see the Chile declassification project done by US National Archives, the training of Muslim terrorists to kill soviet forces in Afghanistan is true, in fact USA is still trying to recover the ground to air missiles that the give to the terrorists,  the training of the Contras to kill Nicaraguans was true (remember the Iran-contra scandal), Noriega was pay by the CIA, US administration reinstalls the dictator of Kuwait.... Etc,  again: What part of the list do you think that is not true?

What I miss is that somebody removes the list of terrorist act of Pinochet, I will reintroduce Milton 14:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If "terrorism" is taken to mean political violence against a civilian population for the purpose of intimidation -- as opposed to acts of war, conquest, or resistance of military occupation -- then several of the entries on the list are inaccurately described as terrorism. While we may rightly oppose war and conquest, it is an abuse of language bordering on Newspeak to call them "terrorism" simply because we don't like them.

 * For instance, the training of Afghani mujahedin to repel Soviet invasion was not, at the time, sponsorship of terrorism, since the mujahedin were fighting an army rather than attacking civilians. It is true that some of the mujahedin later became terrorists, as with Osama bin Laden, but repelling the Soviet invasion was itself war, not terrorism. --FOo 15:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, this is an excellent point lost in the other debate. Looking over the list again, I see no examples of clearcut "terrorism" at all, and many that are not terrorism by any stretch.  Certainly deliberately blowing up an aspirin factory could count, but it was believed to be a chemical weapons plant, so that the intent was not to create terror but to shut down weapons producers.  And so on.  Only the cases of secret insurgency would have a chance of counting, as perhaps US weapons are intentionally being used to intimidate.  Nevertheless, since this is not a list of actions of state terrorism, it does not belong for that reason.  I am moving this list to Michael Moore and US foreign policy.  Maybe something can be done with it there. -- VV 23:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Your definition of state terrorism is not the only one. And there is no proof as to what was "believed."  I don't agree with the specifics of your move, as Michael Moore and US foreign policy does not deserve its own page, however it's acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 23:16, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree it does not deserve its own page; it deserves a trash bin. But it was a compromise.  Anyway, I think many of his examples would not be considered terrorism by anyone and certainly do not meet the definition given in the article. -- VV 02:39, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(To Milton:) How is removing misinformation that doesn't belong in a particular entry censorship? It is no more censorship than removing cookie recipes would be. The Chile entry is lies from start to finish: the US did not stage the coup, Pinochet did; Allende commited suicide, he was not assassinated; Pinochet installed himself; and casualties of civil wars are not usually called "murdered", and anyway exact figures are not known. The US did not train Osama bin Laden. And so on and so on. Moore is a pathological liar, and his lies belong on Michael Moore pages, not one that tries to be a respectable entry on the topic of state terrorism. -- VV 20:39, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear VV. As been said that hard data is important in an scientific project, in my case I use the declassified secret documents about Chile, for example, the document http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm show the intention of USA of stage a coup against a democratically elected government. Also is in the record, the instruction of Nixon to CIA director "Making the economy scream" http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm It was a direct blow to civilians, that result in extended suffering to the population, creating the possibility of a coup. Of course I agree that Nixon don’t shot in the coup!! Do you agree that "Making the economy scream" and the resulting hardship to the general population to further a political goal is inside the formal definition of terrorism? Milton 15:13, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

 * I am aware of all this. It means that in 1970 the CIA was seriously considering a coup, and in fact if I recall they were in negotiations with three different groups which might carry it out, but all of those broke down, and all the evidence I have seen suggests they gave up on the idea after 1970 and the only CIA work being done was intelligence gathering.  It is true the US implemented sanctions, not an unreasonable Cold War policy against a feared Soviet puppet state.  None of this ties the US to the 1973 coup.  Sanctions may have made a coup more likely, but, for comparison, the Iran hostage crisis made Carter's defeat more likely, but would you say Khomeini "staged" the defeat of Carter and "installed" Reagan?  Certainly with a standard like that I'm sure one could find a way to say China is responsible for 9/11, and the dot-com bust is the work of Nelson Mandela. -- VV 19:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

USA: Beirut 1985

 * The US has also engaged in other terrorist attacks, such as placing a car bomb in Beirut in 1985 that killed 45 people.

Back-and-forth reverting on this one all this afternoon. The reference is to the 8 March explosion. in which the (missed) target was believed to be Muhammad Husain Fadlallah (BBC). It's common to read claims of CIA involvement in that atrocity. Any chance of reaching a mutually acceptable wording, one liberally sprinkled with words like 'suspected', 'alleged', 'rumoured'? –Hajor 22:39, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hector is a troublemaker. He should know perfectly well that this is a POV assertion, but he keeps reverting it in anyway.  If you want to take a stab at compromise, please do, but in addition this strikes me as a minor incident for such a general article. -- VV 23:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear, V.V The permanent instructions to the CIA was not to “Consider” a coup was to deliver a coup ! in the first try, they support two army groups to kidnap the army commander, nothing “broken down” one group succeed in an action that result in the killing on the spot of the commander,  I will try my best to develop a POV for the article using only official sources, I hope you see that your standards of POV will be satisfied.

The point is not if the sanctions against the chilean people was or was not reasonable, this is not a POV, but simply your opinion, the standards of the article on terrorism indicated that an action against civilians to further a political goal IS terrorism, justified or not ! !! Milton 10:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the beirut case need to be part of the article, but with the refernece on the end to the Internet site of BBC Milton 10:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Your guilt by association is bizarre, none of this means the US "staged" the coup; their efforts failed, and in fact they broke off their connections with these groups largely because of their disaffection with their behavior. But as to the article: this article defines state terrorism and summarizes it.  An extended discussion about the Chile case is not appropriate here, as it will wind up being half the article.  There are already plenty of other, more specific entries covering this: Chile, History of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, Salvador Allende,  and so on. -- VV

Ok Mr V.V I will correct to US "promoted" a coup, and not that hte US "staged" this is more in line with the CIA instructions., but feel free to reedit if you consider that other term will fit better. !!!!

Please consider, from the NPV page: The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Most of us believe that the mere fact that some text is biased is not enough, by itself, to delete the text outright. If it contains perfectly valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly, and certainly not deleted.

Also is a policy that the article extension is not a problem. Be free !! this is not in paper !!

Also if you have other point of view please be bold and add !!! Milton 22:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It's still out of scope for this article. It's still biased. -- VV 03:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- VV:

I haven't read through the paragraphs that you are trying to remove on Chile adequately. Thus, I am not vouching for the paragraphs that you insist on removing. I do not have a position on those paragraphs.

But to insinuate that Chile was a "puppet state" of the Soviet Union in your edits is ludicrous. I'm noticing a disturbing pattern. You make sweeping claims, but with scant knowledge. Do some reading. I'm not going to give you any more lessons. You can complain about my condescension all you want. However, you'd be far more effective if you marshaled some data behind some serious counter-arguments for a change. 172 00:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I said "many argued", and many have. -- VV 03:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Many crackpots have argued many things. So what? That's the kind of b.s. that gets students failing grades on history exams. 172 03:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VV:

I am not getting involved with the dispute over those two paragraphs. I haven't even read those paragraphs. You and the other users will have to hammer that one out. However, I did read the replacement that you keep reinserting in this article, which is utterly ridiculous.

You call this "uncooperative." However, a while back, User:Jtdirl, another historian, correctly noted that my 'uncooperativeness' was "motivated by… a passion to make wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopædia, not a toy scribble box where inane rubbish, wacky fiction and pure POV bullshit is accepted or tolerated."

On another talk page, I described why this whole Allende Soviet puppet state matter was pull bullshit. Rather than rewrite my comments almost verbatim, I'll just post them on this page.

 * Latin American specialists argue that democratization was especially problematic at more advanced stages of import-substituting development, which made democratic politics an almost-impossible game to play, giving the opening for authoritarian rule under specific circumstances. Chile's coup was part of a wave of authoritarian rule in South America in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Southern Cone region, which traditionally had the best record of democratization in Latin America, you saw military takeovers reverse in Brazil (1964), Argentina (1966), Chile (1973), Uruguay (1973), and Argentina again in 1976 (civilian rule was restored in 1973). Your statements totally disregard the complexities of South American history.

I went on to add:

 * My larger concern, however, is the very simplistic conception of South American history that you want to inflict on this article. It almost seems as if you're under the impression that Allende was bent on setting up a Cuban-style Communist state from day one. However, Allende entered office pursuing an essentially populist strategy in order to expand his base of support. His initial economic strategy owed more to the Southern Cone's homegrown populists in the era framed by the Great Depression and military rule in the '60s and the '70s. Allende's initial strategy was merely freeing prices and raising wages.

 * Later, the nationalization of the copper industry was more of an outgrowth of the "Chileanization" policy of Eduardo Frei - the preceding Christian Democratic president. Note that the congressional vote on this issue, which was a campaign promise, was unanimous. Yes, you did have hardliners in the Nixon administration arguing that this was "proof" that Allende declared war on private property in the hemisphere. But Allende wasn't really vulnerable until Chile was in the grip of runaway inflation by early 1973, falling world copper prices, and an alarming balance-of-payments deficits in 1971 and 1972. By mid-'72 the political climate was out of control and extremely polarized, with massive pro- and anti- Allende street demonstrations becoming routine. Joao Goluart in Brazil fell amid the same circumstances. Yet in and of themselves, we'd hardly consider his actions that triggered the military takeover so "radical" (e.g., giving the vote to illiterates and enlisted men). BTW, the US had a role in Brazil '64 as well (but not a deciding role, by any means); US Ambassador Lincoln Gordon and the US military attache, General Veron Walters, wertr in contact with opposition actors, both military and civilian, before the bloodless 4/1 coup.

 * Regardless, Allende's downfall, along with Goulart's in Brazil, was largely the result of the interplay between social classes and political parties. Allende met fierce opposition from a cohesive upper class united by family ties and objective interest. A unified elite was able to gain the allegiance of the middle and lower-middle class activists, such as storekeepers and truckers. In this context, the US had the opening to support conservative groups that were solid allies on all significant issues of Chilean-US relations. Meanwhile, after the copper, coal, steel, and Bank nationalizations, the US retaliated by holding up loans from the World Bank, the US Export-Import Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Private foreign investment, of course, would come to a halt. As a result, in the last year of his administration, Allende sought out not only lines of credit from the Eastern bloc countries, but also from Western Europe.

 * It is ridiculous to suggest that Allende, who had served decades as a parliamentary politician, wrangling over negotiations to create and maintain coalitions, was bent on setting up a Cuban-style regime and Soviet satellite state from taking office. So, we are dealing with a faltering government struggling to provide services (and needing credit, markets, equipment, and access to supplies), not someone setting up a Soviet puppet and Communist state.

 * Although the US did work steadily at "destabilizing" the Allende government by passing dollars to the opposition and subsidizing anti-Allende strikes (most notably the truckers' strike), the US role was not the deciding factor. IMHO, any US president would've faced an uphill battle if he wanted to prevent a military coup. Leftwing ideologues may say that US imperialism was the deciding factor in the '73 coup, while rightwing ideologues may say that Allende's "Marxism," the "Soviet ties," and the "ties to Fidel" were deciding factors, but historians laugh at these assertions.

In short, if you remove the two paragraphs again, do not reinsert your rubbish and rhetoric about Chile. If you reinsert it, I'll get the page protected by a user who hasn't been a party in this dispute. 172 10:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What needs to be said
The US has supported many dictators, and many of them have carried out terrorism against their people. That should of course be noted. Given that this project is based in the United States, that most of its members come from the United States, that most sources are written by people in the United States, and that the United States is the most powerful nation today, we can expect that anything negative that can be said about this country is associated with controversy. To say that this article should limit itself to subjects which are without controversy is ridiculous. Just because no Chileans and no Russians are working on this matter doesn't mean that these sections are not "controversial".

So we need an NPOV treatment of state terrorism in the United States, which gives fair play to both sides. I think such a section should make mention of:
 * COINTELPRO, which included the murder of prominent political leaders
 * MKULTRA, which included experiments on unwilling human subjects
 * the hypothetical Operation Northwoods
 * the war on drugs - which some have theorized serves the purpose of social control
 * 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory - considered by most to be implausible, but a clear candidate for being listed here
 * United States support for various dictators, such as Idi Amin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, the Somozas, Suharto, Marcos, Reza Pahlevi, the various Haitian rulers (the US are supporting Haiti's terrorists right now, who will soon be state terrorists) ...

That doesn't mean that the article should make the allegation that any of these are true, it should just state what believers in and critics of these respective claims say. If VV cannot engage in such a productive discourse without resorting to edit wars then he is obviously too sensitive about this issue to be editing this article. But I don't see what Michael Moore has to do with the subject. He should be left out of this.—Eloquence 13:28, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * I find this accusation insulting. Did you even notice that there is more than one person involved in the edit wars?  Are you even going to acknowledge that?  Do you realize that Wik is up for arbitration for banning because of precisely this kind of behavior?  But, no, it's all my fault.  Your claim that I have not engaged in discourse is a lie.  I have discussed my reasons on two different pages and in the edit summaries.  I offered an alternative text which I felt addressed the concerns of both sides, only to have it insta-reverted by problem users.  This has nothing to do with sensitivity; it has to do with not putting out-of-scope garbage into the article.  I have put a lot of effort into Wikipedia, and I have a good sense for what does and does not belong.  Thank you for at least acknowledging that Michael Moore is out of place; I had users in my face for pointing this out.

 * As for the US examples, fine, you can expand it, provided you're also willing to expand other countries with equally valid examples. For instance, Bulgaria "supported" Iraq with diplomatic relations and profitable oil trading during the 1980's.  Terrorist nation!  But many of your examples are out of place.  Northwoods never happened; the war on drugs is not "state terrorism" by any stretch, and (in case you don't know) drug prohibition exists in just about every nation on Earth, so list "Mongolia-- Terroristic policy of drug prohibition"; the 9/11 conspiracy theory belongs as much as "Elvis lives" theories do.  Far from the negative things about the US being controversial, the US is clearly being singled out.  In general, I would say one nation supporting the recognized government of another nation, however bad the latter is, should not be called terrorism, even if the first nation is (gasp!) the US.  Rather, it should be considered the second nation's bad.

 * The reason for putting, e.g., Soviet Russia is because these things are now part of the historical record and serve to illustrate what state terrorism is, which, incidentally, is the point. But, no, this article is just being used as a dumping ground for people with an agenda to pile up accusations against countries they don't like (actually, only one).  The connection to "terrorism" is basically forgotten about in the anxious desire to list all one's grievances.

 * In any event, I feel I have put up with a lot from a couple of very personally abusive users and have shown a good deal of patience and civility, and I find your tone non-civil and non-productive. Either you were ignorant of the actual history before you wrote your mean-spirited comment about me, or you put little thought into it, or (worst) you simply are dumping on me to discredit those who oppose your own agenda.  If you want "productive discourse", I think you should reconsider your comments.  -- VV 16:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in discussing the veracity of these claims with you, I am interested in having these views represented in the article. As for your behavior, when I look at the history of this page, what I see is other users trying to add information, and you are trying to remove it. In particular, I am seeing this edit war:

 * 1) (cur) (last)  . . 12:58, Feb 23, 2004 . . Kosebamse
 * 2) (cur) (last) . . 08:38, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 3) (cur) (last) . . 08:22, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 4) (cur) (last) . . 08:21, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 5) (cur) (last) . . 08:21, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 6) (cur) (last) . . 08:21, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 7) (cur) (last) . . 08:18, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 8) (cur) (last) . . 08:18, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 9) (cur) (last) . . 08:16, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 10) (cur) (last) . . 08:16, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (protection please)
 * 11) (cur) (last) . . 08:14, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 12) (cur) (last) . . 08:08, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 13) (cur) (last) . . 08:07, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (last sane version)
 * 14) (cur) (last) . . 07:57, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
 * 15) (cur) (last) . . 07:57, Feb 23, 2004 . . Anthony DiPierro
 * 16) (cur) (last) . . 07:55, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (yes)
 * 17) (cur) (last) . . 07:53, Feb 23, 2004 . . Anthony DiPierro (deliberate attacks on civilians?)
 * 18) (cur) (last) . . 07:48, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv VV)
 * 19) (cur) (last) . . 07:42, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv wik)
 * 20) (cur) (last) . . 07:38, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (rv VeryVerily vandalism)
 * 21) (cur) (last) . . 07:33, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rm garbage again)
 * 22) (cur) (last) . . 07:31, Feb 23, 2004 . . Wik (restore deletions)
 * 23) (cur) (last) . . 07:18, Feb 23, 2004 . . VeryVerily (fixing 172's persistent vandalism (reverting deletion of paras he admits to not having read))
 * 24) (cur) (last) . . 04:04, Feb 23, 2004 . . Bryan Derksen (alphabetized nations, gave an overall header)

 * And I am not seeing the accompanying discussion on the talk page. 172 explained why he felt the section in question was appropriate on Feb. 15, you did not respond. Instead I see you accusing 172 of being a "vandal" in the edit comments for reinserting text. And you complain about abusive behavior? This is not the way to collaboratively build an article. The way to do so is to discuss differences of opinion, especially if you want to remove text.—Eloquence 21:43, Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You apparently did not read the talk page you cited. 172 denied even having read the paragraphs, and now you claim he explained why he felt it was appropriate!  Really!  Perhaps calling him a vandal for blindly reverting my entire edit because of two words he did not like was excessive, though maybe not, but given the amount of personal abuse I have received from 172, as well as the belligerent and uncooperative behavior I have experienced from him, I do not think it wholly out of line.  It is appallingly ignorant to imply that I am the one who's been abusive in light of the context.  Apparently you did not even read the rest of my edit summary!  I know how to collaboratively build an article, don't need you to tell me otherwise, and would like to get on with the business of doing so without having to deal with brats.

 * As for "adding information", this is "added information", but it's garbage and was reverted on sight, as it should have been. As for your claim the views belong in the article, they do not.  Two people's conflicting views about whether eggs should be in a cookie recipe should not be represented, either.  My "view" is that various things are not appropriate for this article, and I explained why.  You have not responded to my reasons. -- VV 23:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 172 explained, aggressively, why he thought your replacement was unacceptable. You should have responded to that explanation instead of engaging in an edit war. What's done is done, but just now you called other users "brats", which is also unacceptable. I suggest that you recuse yourself from this article for a few days, let me and the others work on a replacement section, and then return to discuss the replacement. As for your reasons, you said that you find it OK to expand the section if I expand the other sections. I do not intend to take any conditions for editing articles, however.—Eloquence 23:47, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * 172 explained why he did not like part of my replacement, and then reverted me entirely. If you've been paying attention, you already know this is what occurred.  That is not acceptable.  He could have edited the offending portion, a counter-offer, which is what I and any collaborative person would have.  I did respond to his reasons, but there is little talking to him.  And why don't you just admit you were wrong about 172 saying he felt the section was appropriate?  It would save a lot of trouble.  As for the brats comment, I did not direct it at anyone in particular, and you surely do not deny that some people are brats.  Finally, that is an oversimplification of my reasons.  And if you are not taking any conditions, neither am I.  I will not recuse myself.  Feel free to make constructive edits though, and if they're reasonable we have a basis for working together.  It would also help if you started talking to me in a more respectful tone.  -- VV 23:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The fact is that you participated in an avoidable edit war. I hope that you won't do that again.—Eloquence

 * My feeling is that it was justified, and that there were other participants who acted inappropriately. But fine, this discussion is winding down; I hope at least I've communicated my points about your characterization of me (etc.), even if you're not going to concede them.  That aside, perhaps you have some edits in mind?  I still claim that Chile tirade needs to go, and I think my counter-proposal was excellent.  I also think dumping the country list entirely (proposed on CDoA) is reasonable.  But, your move.  -- VV 04:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved from current disputes
(The following was moved from Current disputes over articles; it was too long for that page -- ChaTo, 27 Feb 2004)

I agree the examples section is unnecessary, but here's the story: The usual anti-America crowd insisted on repeatedly adding highly questionable accusations against the US into this article, so for fairness's sake I made it into a list of countries and accusations and toned down the anti-US rhetoric. Another such user wanted to put in a longish, highly POV screed about the Chile coup and the US, including quotes from the CIA and the like, which was completely out of scope for a summary article like this, which should only include a few, simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial examples of the phenomenon under discussion. (The Chile issue can be discussed in Chile articles.) I mentioned this repeatedly in Talk and in the edit summaries. Next, enter 172, who, in typical 172 style, completely reverts my entire edit because he objects to two words I used ("puppet state", which I said many argued Chile might become), even admitting he has not even looked at the paragraphs I removed. He does this a couple of times, and adds something irrelevant in Talk about why the interpretation I said many have is wrong. It sits a few days, and I restore my edits. Now Wik pops in and repeatedly reverts. He quickly surpasses the three-revert limit, which he has said he does not acknowledge, against both me and Anthony, and so since I was dealing with someone who ignores the "rule" I also did, so that my edits are not squashed by two obnoxious users in tandem. Wik shows no evidence of having read the Talk discussion or having any knowledge of the issues under consideration, and I even better see the Wik banning point of view (and 172's behavior is not admirable either). -- VV 07:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the examples section is necessary, as a vague term such as "State terrorism" can only be defined via via examples. The "Chile issue" (the CIA intervention to overthrow Allende´s government) is the best documented case that exemplifies why, even if you have the best intentions, you must never support a government being overthrown by the military. To summarize: the best arguments for and against US foreing policy must be included, as it is widely acused of being a country that uses State Terrorism. -- ChaTo, Chilean, 25 Feb 2004.

 * Like I said, the examples should be simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial. The Chile coup does not qualify.  First, many (including me) do not accept that the US had any direct role (nor does Cuye's exposition actually say so), so that listing under the US at all is ridiculous.  Second, overthrowing a government is not terrorism; terrorism is terrorizing a population with (generally) violence, whereas here the goal of the coup was not to terrorize anyone but to replace the government.  Exemplifying why even with the best intentions one should not support a coup has nothing to do with the topic of "state terrorism", and anyway this opinion is a POV which should not be promoted by Wikipedia (although it could be explained in, e.g., a pacifism article).  Third, this case is not by any standard simple; it is tricky and ambiguous, with many POVs persisting today as to its rightness or wrongness.  Finally, refer to what I said in the talk pages and the like; this is a big issue, requiring much documentation and explanation of all sides, far out of scope for this article, just as a detailed examination of the Chinese Cultural Revolution would be out of place.  The blurb I put in on the subject, repeatedly reverted by troublemakers 172 and Wik, fits perfectly, while the lengthy, ill-fitting, heavily biased section they favor is way out of line. -- VV 00:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The CIA reported to the congress of the USA in September, 2000 that the CIA "actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende" (CIA report on Chile), but "did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency.". Also, "Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses following Allende’s ouster. Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military.". I understand that many people in the USA don't want to believe this happened, but as Colin Powell said on April, 2003: "It is not a part of American history that we're proud of" . Many controversial or shameful issues have its place with balanced pages in Wikipedia. This one also diserves a place. -- ChaTo

 * I know what happened, thank you very much. First of all, the things you mentioned occurred after the coup, while other users' text was trying to blame the US for the coup.  If you'll note, I did put in my own text on this subject, it just wasn't as long and extensive, because the topic (state terrorism) is a huge one, and this one issue does not need a long exposition in this article.  Yes, this issue deserves it place in Wikipedia, just not to this extent on this article.  This is the point you have not addressed at all.  Yes, I remember Colin Powell's comment, and he is entitled to his opinion. -- VV 16:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The coup itself was almost painless (for a military coup), not too bloody, not a civil war, there were very few deaths at the moment. The sistematic state terrorism, including death, torture, imprisoment, etc, begins the day after that. And you are right, the role of the USA government in Chile is better documented after the coup than as a cause of the coup. ChaTo, 27 Feb 2004

 * Then are you or are you not defending the text I removed? Because it had nothing to do with after the coup.  Let's stay focused on the dispute at hand. -- VV 23:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VV:

You have been doing an excellent job on this talk page over the past couple of days. Until you started making so much progress on this page, I was wondering if trying to stop edit wars by encouraging constructive dialogue was a futile endeavor. To my disappointment, your antagonists have been quiet since the string of page protections.

Fortuately, the idea of the page protection has finally started to work. You're no longer dealing with partisans, but Eloquence, whose breath of knowledge, engagement, and reasonableness make him one of the site's highest caliber contributors. If you maintain your focus on matters of content, you will have no trouble reaching a compromise. Let me know if you want this page protection lifted.

Good luck resolving the neutrality dispute. 172 00:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This needed a rewrite, and I did it. I appreciate any criticism. - S   07:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't object to your changes, but.... This page is protected, rightly or wrongly, and so shouldn't be edited.  -- VV 21:45, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

From Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial But in co-writing an article with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. "In 1989, Drs. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah shocked the world by reporting they had discovered a means to tap energy from nuclear fusion at near to room temperatures." Even though very few scientists believe Pons' and Fleishchman's report was accurate, let alone responsible, probably none would disagree with the assertion made in the previous sentence.
 * Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, still your view is just one of many possible in theory.
 * To attribute means to specify who stands behind a claim.
 * A citation tells readers where they can look to verify that the attribution is accurate
 * Assertions written in neutral language are objectively true. One such neutral assertion is this:

Dear VV, I quote the previous paragraphs from the NPOV tutorial to have in hand, because I don’t perceive that you read it, and you develop new Criteria for NPOV, like “ which should only include a few, simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial examples “ that are not supported by the NPOV page.!!!!, and this create editing war, when a member star to develop criteria’s of his own !!, if you don’t like the criteria, please discuss in the NPOV criteria page.!!!, not here.

First, I like to recollect the start of your POV intervention, At this time, In the space of the Unites State terrorism, was a quote from Michael Moore film about the acts of state terrorism that this specific author assign to US Government. This was clearly in line with a NPOV Tutorial, as a statement written in neutral language, and assign to a specific person (see above). The fact that Mr. Moore is a controversial person, or that the statement made by the person are indeed controversial doesn’t mater the policy don’t said the we need to keep quoting only not controversial persons. As you can see in the very controversial declaration declaration utilized in the example (above), from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

Really your rally against text introduced based in the criteria developed in the NPOV page, was a surprise to me, but in the hand of  compromise, I develop  a case of US state terrorism against Chilean people,  (I develop also the State terrorism of Chile, but you don’t see to object that) using the criteria if the NPOV page, in this case using citations, other criteria supported by the NPOV tutorial page,  I expect that CIA transcripts ARE hard evidence !!! Now you move your opinion, to said that a list of cases needs to be short (Not a criteria introduced by the NPOV page) or don’t need to quote, or don’t belong here  !!

And in fact your “contributions” to this time means mainly to remove texts that you object, instead of collaboration a to suggest a NOPV version, again, against the policy. I only have the possibility to ask you to support your bold declarations with some hard facts !!!

As a conclusion, I support to return to the page in the state that have the list of acts attributed by Michael Moore on it, as a NPOV approach, supported by the definitions in the NPOV tutorial I realize that you personally consider the list as fiction but the criteria of fiction or not to introduce is not suported in NPOV tutorial(see example above). But if you like a list of cases, each case needs to be made based in his merits, an not in “I accept this case if you accept mine” Milton 15:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * First, POV is not the main issue in the comments you cite; scope is. Do you want to put this same long Chile tirade in dozens of articles, such as coup d'etat, dictatorship, foreign policy, CIA, terrorism, revolution, democracy, international law, United States, History of the United States, violence, military, imperialism, capitalism, murder, etc., etc.?  There is no end in sight.  It does not belong here, it's too big and complicated, what does belong here is exactly what I said, a few, simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial examples, which define and explain the concept of state terrorism, which is what this article is about.  A person can follow the link to Chile and read a lot more about the history of the nation and the circumstances surrounding the 1973 chaos, if they so wish.

 * Second, yes there is a POV problem if the US receives grossly unbalanced coverage.

 * The Michael Moore issue has been painfully and long hashed out to death, with the result that it was agreed to put it in Bowling for Columbine. You're not helping matters trying to dredge up the issue all over again. -- VV 17:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * VV is right. Please see my comments at Talk:Michael Moore and US foreign policy explaining that Michael Moore is an artist, not a source for anything. 172 03:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Ok, Good to know that the Moore Issue is set.

Second I never suggest to put this two paragraphs about the US government measures against Chilean people in the in list of articles that you provide, nor I hear that other’s persons are suggesting something like this.

Third, I’m glad to see that the issue is not NPOV of the specific paragraphs, but scope and “complicated” to said that it doesn’t belong here., also that your perception is that US receive a “receives grossly unbalanced coverage”.

Good to know, what are your objections. I will try to compromise in all points.

First to the point that US receive “receives grossly unbalanced coverage” I support that the balance between the different countries in this history will benefit from “balance” The criteria that I like to suggest to assess balance is to agree in a number of cases by country, considering the importance of the country. For example if the paragraph of a small country like Chile (PGB U$$ 5,000) have three cases, an important country like US (PGB U$$40,000) the number of cases can go up to 3*(40,000/5,000) i.e. 24 cases, but I’m open to compromise in other’s criteria, based in country size, population, etc..

To do so, and at the same time reduce the extension of the article, I suggest to remove all qualifications and stick to the know facts, a small paragraph like the following will do:

UNITED STATES

The United States of America, has bee acused by some of activities that fall under the definition of State terrorism, some of the cases (credited/endorsed/attributed?) are: Hiroshima, Intervention in Chile, COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, which included experiments on unwilling human subjects, the hypothetical Operation Northwoods,, , , , up to 24 cases.

This will permit to transfer the two NPOV material developed about the US intervention to the secondary page Intervention in Chile. And will be the same to the another’s cases in the list, as been done with the cases listed under Chile in this article.

Name of the secondary article: to contribute to the usefulness of the articles, I suggest to use the following criteria for naming convention:  Use a proper name if the target article are almost fully dedicated to the topic as the case of Hiroshima, if not, create a secondary page like Intervention in Chile. The problem is that if we point directly to Chile the information will be lost in the middle of a long article that include a score of diverse subjects. Unfortunately, WIKIEDIA don’t have a tool to point to a paragraph directly inside an article.

I think that this reflect a balance, considering the importance of the nations, and reduce the extension of the article, but again, the extension of the article is not a restriction imposed by the rules. Milton 15:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with the idea of secondary pages, but I stress the need of separate: a) well documented cases, b) cases with some evidence and c) conspiracy theories, etc. with little evidence. The US intervention in Chile is not to be compared with the 9/11 conspiracy theory, if you place them the readers will think that they have the same level of veracity. The CIA is not "acused by some" of supporting Pinochet, the CIA "acknowledged through a report to the US congress" that it did support Pinochet. What can be said in conditional mode is that "some people consider those actions state terrorism." -- ChaTo 1 Mar 2004.

 * I think having a United States intervention in Chile is a perfectly fine idea which would address my concerns about scope and bias by disproportionate treatement. Of course, it would have to be a NPOV treatment, not a screed.  If this silly protection is off and the annoying people leave this article alone, I can restore my version which essentially did what you suggest, giving a brief mention of the Chile issue, and a link could be added to the article, or to Chile, which in turn can link to that article.  I do not, however, think having degree of treatment proportional to GDP (or whatever) makes much sense. -- VV 22:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's lay off the Chile matter at long last. (If you want my reasoning, see my comments posted somewhere above on this talk page.) First, the US role was not the deciding factor in the Chile coup in '73. If the '73 coup belongs on this page, it belongs under the heading of Chile - not under the United States. Second, keep the scope and depth even with the other countries cited too. If you want to elaborate on the subject on an appropriate page, post a banner reading, for example, "For further details see Augusto Pinochet." Wiki has the hyperlinks. So use them. BTW, if can't get to trimming down the irrelevent content on Chile, I'll have to do it. 172 02:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Well, we are working in this page because the previous editing of state terrorism, specifically the entry for US, was not satisfactory to some. This is why to come back to some previous version, all as been rejected by some reason or other is not conducting a to a solution.

Bearing this in mind, this is why I suggest a short, brand new paragraph to the US entry. To have a discussion oriented to close the case, I suggest to post opinions about THIS specific paragraph and methodology, or to suggest new short paragraph HERE !!!!

TO VV: I really care about your concern about your concern that US receive a “grossly unbalanced coverage”, I don’t participate of your concern, but as far as we are compromising I develop a specific methodology, in line with the NPOV page,  Now is your turn to suggest a new methodology to discuss………

In short my suggestions is

a)to post HERE solution to the topic on hand.

B) my sugestion is a paragraph like

UNITED STATES

The United States of America, has bee acused by some of activities that fall under the definition of State terrorism, some of the cases (credited/endorsed/attributed?) are: Hiroshima, Intervention in Chile, COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, which included experiments on unwilling human subjects, the Operation Northwoods, ,

with the two paragraps that describe the intervention in Chile goes to the article Intervention in Chile

Milton 09:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see how this paragraph is an improvement over what was there before. It's far less explicit and does not explain anything.  I do sort of agree the Moore reference can be eliminated, but what I had seemed to address everyone's concerns just fine, especially now that we've agreed to mete out intervention to another page. -- VV 06:48, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Sorry VV, but The previus paragraph looks that you agree to the last version.......

The change that you are made was precisally part of the source of problems, this is why a fully new text was developed IN THIS PAGE

 * You have not responded to my arguments at all, just reverted me. Your history is inaccurate: the source of the problems was not the old section at all, but the long screed on Chilean intervention which has now been farmed off to another article.  You have given me no reasons why my clear version is worse than this choppy and uninformative one. -- VV 23:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The propositions developed under this editing war was about the full paragraph of the entry under the United States name, And a full ne version of this entry was posted here to comment, sorry, the edithing war is over !! I suggest that you apply for mediation.

I'm confident that your POV statement trying to reduce all comments to terrorism because we are richer will be a laugh to any mediator. Milton 09:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Is this your only objection? Because it's not even close to justifying erasing everything.  You have not given any other reasons for undoing this, while I have explained mine. -- VV 09:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Soory VV but you really don't understand that personal comments are not for an job like this, instead is a lot of discussion groups in internet that you can join, I sustain that your comments are POV, all of them, not just the example, I only need to remember you the comment that other person make months ago, please READ about the subject, before writing about it ! Milton 09:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You have still failed to give a single reason why the short, choppy, uninformative version is better - not one. I can't even understand this paragraph, but it is clear it does not pertain to the issues at hand. -- VV 10:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Soory vv but you was the first person making a revert to an older versin not me !! Again, I suggest mediation

 * Your edit was to replace the entire text I wrote with your blurb. There is nothing to mediate, you have still not given even one..., well, see previous comment by me, as nothing has changed. -- VV 09:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry VV but you still keep reverting from the version developed in talk page, to an older version, superseed by the talk page agreement. Milton 12:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Compromise?
VV, why don't you accept the previous version? Earlier, I was under the impression that you had been arguing that that very paragraph was dubious. But perhaps I'm wrong. After all, I was trying to avoid entering the debate since I had been the one protecting the page from further edits. Anyway, the references to Chile, e.g., are especially bad. "NPOV" does not constitute balancing the mythologies of both the far left and the far right. While the US had a direct role in the '73 coup in Chile, the US role was not the deciding factor; thus, content on the Pinochet regime belongs under the Chile heading rather than the US heading. It's a better to just remove the references 'US state terrorism in Chile' than attempt to balance this partisan leftwing sob song with the dubious views of rightwing crackpots. The idea that Allende was bent on setting up "Cuban-style Communism," and was on verge of creating a "Soviet puppet state," carries about as much weight as the belief that Elvis is still alive. BTW, why not create some clear-cut policy guidelines for writing about the '73 coup in Chile? Although Latin America is notoriously overlooked on this site, this topic just seems to engender the weirdest edit wars. 172 13:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The '73 coup definitely seems to produce problems, perhaps because a staple of leftist orthodoxy is that the US staged it (and, e.g., fr says so outright), when inconvenient facts show otherwise. It might be helpful to have guidelines, but would anyone listen?  Having the intervention article as a clearinghouse might be nice, but it has not stabilized either, also because of this (problem?) user.  I don't know why you're asking me to compromise, the paragraph he wrote is basically junk, a blurb and a list, as opposed to paragraphs of articlesque discussion.  He claims it was "agreed to", but the only person to agree to it is himself.  And he has not given a single reason why it is better despite repeated queries; he is just reverting.  You may share his politics, but are you defending these tactics?

 * Your Cuba point is the same one you made earlier, and it is wrong for the same reason. Regardless of what Allende intended, Nixon feared "another Cuba", and he's the one who made the decision to try to intervene.  Thus, what he thought is relevant.  If the US went into Iraq because Bush thought he saw Elvis, that would be relevant to an Iraq article.  I agree the majority of what happened in Chile belongs under Chile, but the "economic and political pressure" can be thought of as a US action, which is why I included it.  Removing it might spare edit wars, but that's not what this one is about anyway.  In fact, I don't even know what it's about, why Cuye/Milton is so attached to his awful version.  Perhaps you should ask him (if you haven't) instead of directing your comments at me.

 * I would be perfectly willing to work on revisions of this text if reasons surface to do so. No such reason has been proffered by C/M.

 * Speaking of which, one edit war which has raged re Chile is whether Pinochet should be called a military dictator or not. Given your awareness of the LA edit wars and your ferocity in pulling this label from Stalin's and Castro's pages, each of who held the expected sort of absolute power over their respective nations, I am curious about your reticence on this one.  I'll assume for now (as per good faith) it's not simple bias. -- VV 23:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm picking and choosing my battles, and this is all that I can stomach regarding the '73 coup. I'm going to revert to the last edit too. That paragraph is really, really lame. 172 23:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Finally the point is about Wikietiquette, A redaction was agreeded in the talk page, and no other version to solve the editing war was suggested in the talk page, this was introduced int he article, next cames VV and make a full replacement, that is against the policy, I said again, it is bad policy to simple remove all text. Of course I'm open to work in a constructive manner, but is not aceptable a full; change, that also happens it is a change to a version previus to a editing war. I would be perfectly willing to work on revisions of this text if reasons surface to do so. Milton 14:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) Other[s pages suggest the following approach:
 * Make small changes, a bit at a time, taking care to make sure that they are verifiable and expressed dispasionatley.
 * Tone down your language, take out as much emotive stuff as you can, and let the facts speak for themselves.

To 172: If you read the article again, nobody as said that the Us Intervention in Chile was a comanding factor behind the pinochet cup, it was, simply an intervention.

the final pargraph said : """" Some people think that the resulting instability created the conditions for the successful military coup against Allende, in 1973.

As you can see the article only said about conditions, not about the coup itself, of course if you like to add that o[ters think that it was not a mayor factor be free !! be bold !!

-- So now we're on User:Cuye's version ? Why don't we start taking bets on the next time there will be a hasty revert?

BTW, is User:VeryVerily writing an article, or settling scores with other users? I suggested a compromise. But apparently he was only pleased with half of it - the part that didn't ask him to back down on anything. His less-than-magnanimous response was: "The '73 coup definitely seems to produce problems, perhaps because a staple of leftist orthodoxy is that the US staged it (and, e.g., fr says so outright), when inconvenient facts show otherwise."

On this article, along with many others, he's blown out of proportion any excuse for a dispute, managing to turn it into the usual attack on the "leftist orthodoxy." I'm surprised that he hasn't gotten bored with this already. Of course, he agreed with me when I asked everyone to keep "this partisan leftwing sob song" out of the article. But I got nowhere when trying to urge him to keep the equally nonsensical rightwing propaganda out of the article.

(There's little need to rehash this over and over again, so I'll just include a link. Please see Talk:History of the United States (1980–1991), where I respond to the same set of problems in another article. Others can chime in if they want.) 172 17:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Compromise? This is what's known in the biz as a "revert".  I'm sick of your accusations against me, that I'm settling scores or blowing out of proportion excuses for a dispute.  I have clearly and repeatedly explained my position in this page, and neither you nor Cuye/Milton have offered any response but to attack me.  If you wish to talk about this in a civil and respectful manner, let me know. -- VV 21:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course you've repeatedly explained your position. You always do this. But that's not the problem that I've been addressing. You rarely (if ever) give up the role of the rightwing partisan, and you refuse to compromise. The problem, instead, is your intransigence. 172 10:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * How "intrasigent" would you be if someone continued to erase your work without rhyme or reason? -- VV 10:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Without reason? Yeah right, I've been urging you to get rid of it for weeks. You're not fooling anyone. 172 10:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You complained about two words-- "puppet state". That complaint does not justify reverting everything I've done, and furthermore I gave a detailed response to your objections to those two words.  Cuye/Milton has never given any explanation for anything, and you have not said anything but "lame" for anything but that one complaint. -- VV 11:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- I repeat for the benefit of VV that "reads" and don't see any response !!!Milton

Finally the point is about Wikietiquette, A redaction was agreeded in the talk page, and no other version to solve the editing war was suggested in the talk page, this was introduced int he article, next cames VV and make a full replacement, that is against the policy, I said again, it is bad policy to simple remove all text. Of course I'm open to work in a constructive manner, but is not aceptable a full; change, that also happens it is a change to a version previus to a editing war. I would be perfectly willing to work on revisions of this text if reasons surface to do so. Milton 14:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC.)

Other[s pages suggest the following approach:
 * Make small changes, a bit at a time, taking care to make sure that they are verifiable and expressed dispasionatley.
 * Tone down your language, take out as much emotive stuff as you can, and let the facts speak for themselves.

But the fact that VV try to revert to an old version, older thant a previus editing war, speak volumens about his posibilities of "Compromise". In fact VV was the first person making a revert to an older version Milton

 * Then I repeat for your benefit. (1) The edit war was not over those paragraphs, but over two other paragraphs.  See?    The only other disputed portion was one sentence which was meant to substitute for those two paragraphs.  (2) This change was never agreed to by anyone but yourself.  You just put it in, in an apparent attempt to end an edit war which had already ended.  (3) There is no justification for your mass deletion of what I wrote and replacement with that choppy blurb.  Explanatory text is better than a bare list.  (4) Yes, I was the first to revert a large, unjustified deletion of my work.  What would you expect?  (5) You have never given even one reason why you prefer your version, though I've repeatedly queried.  Yet you persist in this edit war.  What was that about speaking volumes? -- VV 09:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For your convenience, the posted solution to the previus editing war was:

"""""To do so, and at the same time reduce the extension of the article, I suggest to remove all qualifications and stick to the know facts, a small paragraph like the following will do:

UNITED STATES

The United States of America, has bee acused by some of activities that fall under the definition of State terrorism, some of the cases (credited/endorsed/attributed?) are: Hiroshima, Intervention in Chile, COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, which included experiments on unwilling human subjects, the hypothetical Operation Northwoods,, , , , up to 24 cases.

This will permit to transfer the two NPOV material developed about the US intervention to the secondary page Intervention in Chile. And will be the same to the another’s cases in the list, as been done with the cases listed under Chile in this article. """"""

See? the solution was about the full entry of United States ...... and again, no other solution was suggested. You Know the rule for developa an article that was bloqued is to work in the TALK page, and no other salution was posted...... In this sense, "solutions" that are not posted are not eligible !!

Thanks to Tannin and The Anome for getting involved to end this stalemate, and hopefully underscoring the obvious fact that the blind and senseless revert attack was wholly unjustified and making for a worse article. I don't have a problem with the trimming down (although it's all mixed up as of this writing), and at least it's a serious effort to engage the issues instead of what 172 and Cuye have been doing (I would call the former's acts a "temper tantrum" were I inclined to use his consistently disrespectful terminology). -- VV 11:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, VV. I don't think this article should be too hard for us to agree on. Deciding that the acts of country X are "state terrorism" and the acts of country Y are not is way beyond our remit. As I see it, we simply report without comment the claims made, provided that those claims are (a) made reasonably prominently, and (b) have at least a certain amount of evidence for them. Oh, and that we report these claims as claims, of course. Tannin

Nicaragua
I removed this paragraph from the article:

 * The United States was condmened [sic - VV] by the World Court in 1986 for "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua. Terrorism is defined by NATO as "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives".

Nothing in the World Court ruling declared that this constituted terrorism. The NATO definition of terrorism is interesting, but does not belong here. It probably belongs in the (mess known as the) terrorism article, as it is a fairly general statement peculiar not just only not to the US but not to state terrorism. Noting the "unlawful use of force" shared wording doesn't cut it; bombing Pearl Harbor was unlawful but not terrorism. -- VV 21:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Re: the new version of the Nicaragua claim. "Criticised"?  By who?  Anyone of any significance? -- VV 01:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

Authors and academics such as Noam Chomsky, Frederick H. Garreau, Edward S. Herman and William Blum (a former CIA operative) have all written various critiques of US Foreign Policy that have labelled the use of the Contra proxy army in Nicaragua as State Terrorism. Whether or not we a agree or disagree, I think it's fair to include their observations as part of the entry and leave readers to draw their own conclusions. -- JonnyManic 20:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

nice work
Lowe, nice work here. Kudos. Kingturtle 19:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

King, thanks. I majored in history (among other things...) with a concentration in Military History, and I often use 'Hiroshima and Nagasaki' to see whether I'll be able to "agree to disagree" with people with different beliefs than I have, or if I'm arguing with somebody who believes the military and historical equivalent of "2+2=5". Loweeel 18:32, 27 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings
The stuff about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings under the US section was definitly not NPOV. It appeared to basically be a aurgument supporting the bombings as necessary and justified. The issue of whether the bombings where necessary and justified is still very much in debate. I tried to rewrite the paragraph so as to keep the aurguments but attribute them to defenders of the bombings. --Cab88

 * Also, there seems to be a variety of arguments about it, summing into 3 positions.
 * Were the bombings justified?
 * if yes, then it wasn't state terrorism, but a legitmate act of war.
 * if no, then was it state terrorism?
 * yes, because of XXX
 * no, because (among other things) killing of civilians was not the primary goal, etc.

 * People may disagree on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I cannot think of a single serious military historian who believes that is the case. The reason I say MILITARY historian is because military historians are the ones who compare Hiroshima and Nagasaki to other battles and other instances of bombings, and thus are most qualified to compare and contrast them to earlier bombings and similar events.  Across the political spectrum, military historians agree about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only that they were not State Terrorism, but that they were justified.

 * In contrast, those who consider it terrorism are not military historians, and are generally cultural historians guilty of extremely poor research, like the japanese cultural historian John Dower, (whose book is laughably bad), or those with a far-left or anti-american axe to grind. While it may be "still very much in debate" among certain segments of the population, I'm sure that many segments of the population also believe in perpetual motion, despite the fact that physicists have proven the impossibility of it.  Still, I left most of your changes in while altering them slightly, while I double-check.  Loweeel 20:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * First, I cannot verify your claim that ALL military historians who agree the bombings where justified so unless you can present evidence supporting this claim then I don't think it should be stated in the article. Secondly, even if the stuff about military historians is true, the section still needs to reflect that fact that a significant number of people disagree on the bombings justification. These people are not simply leftwing cooks or flat earth believers or whatnot. During a recent anniversary of the bombings their was much in the media about the debate. The fact is that regardless of whether you view the alternate views of the bombings as having any basis in reality or not is irrelevant as Wikipedia should present most views.--Cab88

 * The point I'm making is that the dissenters are not experts in the field, whereas all or almost all the experts in the field are supporters. As long as the article reflects the fact that the dissenters are not just a minority view, but a non-expert view, I'm ok with it. - Loweeel 14:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that this article is not the proper place to go into the debate in any detail since the informationm is allready covered in the main article on the bombings. Thus I maybe the section should be paired down and a link to main article on the bombings put in instead. --Cab88

 * Well, one argument might be that many wartime behaviors considered standard military tactics might still also constitute terrorism; perhaps a wholly separate section of the article should be devoted to this debate. (For instance, an extremist might consider bombing cities at all to be terrorism.)  The case could also be made that the bombings were less for their military value than their intimidation value.  Whatever the case, this argument is also rehearsed at the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, so I don't think it needs to be repeated in full here.  I think that section should be trimmed and the hyperlink used to refer the reader to further information. V V    20:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cab88, Loweeel: Sorry about clobbering all the edits after the duplication; I cut and pasted them in in a follow-up edit, but somehow it didn't go through. Maybe there was an edit conflict or I forgot to hit "save" or something. Anyway, Loweeel has reinserted them. V V   20:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I bet what happened is that I (foolishly) cut-and-pasted from the wrong copy! Since this resulted in no change, Wikipedia just ignored my "edit". V V    20:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I edited down the section on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki becuase after consideration I felt the arguments made there were better left to the article on the bombings themselves. Since other examples in this article don't include aurguments opposing the claims of state terrosism I think such arguments should be placed in individual articles that allready cover each example. Cab88

Not a broadly accepted political science term
It should be noted that "state terrorism" is a neologism, not a broadly accepted political science term. The formulation works within a framework that redefines "terrorism", itself a relatively recent term, to have an even broader meaning than it did before 9/11, that of violence intended to destabilize nations by attacking civilians. By that definition "state terrorism" is nonsensical. --The Cunctator 03:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Neologisms are in the eye of the beholder, as are definitions of what is "broadly accepted". Labelling this term a neologism is a POV effort to minimize violence against civilians committed by state actors so that the term "terrorism" is only used to describe non-state actors. "Broadly accepted" is code for "what I, and most of the people whom I know, believe". State terrorism is not confined to totalitarian governments nor is it directed solely at national populations. It can be perpetrated by democratic governments and against communities and groups smaller than national populations. A cursory search finds the term "state terrorism" used by Amnesty International, used in academic political science textbooks for more than 20 years, and as a subject taught in Political Science courses in major US universities.  Alberuni 04:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alberuni. Also, terrorism is not defined as "violence intended to destabilize nations by attacking civilians" ("destabilising a nation" doesn't even make any sense - you probably mean "destabilising a state or government"). Terrorism is defined as violence that (1) targets civilians in an indisciminate fashion (2) to achieve political/social/religious goals. State terrorism is absolutely within that definition, and it is used when the (direct or indirect) perpetrator of terrorism is a state. - pir 09:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Do we know if the term goes back before the 1980s? Understanding the history of the term's use is, I think, key to understanding the term's meaning, especially within the context of trying to develop a consistent sociopolitical language. I don't think anyone would challenge that the use of "terrorism" in political science has skyrocketed in the last few years. This is a significant change which should not be ignored. Let's try not to be creatures of the moment. --The Cunctator 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neologisms are not in the eye of the beholder. I tend to agree that neologisms should be marked as such, especially if it is a term not broadly accepted. Very Verily 10:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, but "state terrorism" does not appear to be a neologism simply by virtue of the fact that it is a phrase, and neither of its component words are new. "State terrorism" is only a neologistic expression if the definition of terrorism explicitly excludes state actors, in which case "state terrorism" is coining a new sense of the word terrorism. - Nat Krause 15:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The situation may be analogous to homicide bomber. Both words are established, but they're combination is a neologism. Very Verily  22:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, what makes something a neologism is whether it's a newly-coined term. Alberuni has given evidence that it's not. --The Cunctator 01:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I did some minor NPOV'ing, mostly in the first sentence (just re-iterated controversial term in first "definition" sentence, that's stated later anyways).

Also removed some unprovable, or just false, statements (cause of more deaths than "non-state" terrorism,etc.). And dumped the "State and Non-State Terrorism" sections, because it's just WRONG. If someone wants to re-write it, fine, but it was unsalvageable. Notes below each point.

 * "This is, in part, due to the fact that states generally possess more powerful, sophisticated and sweeping means of enforcing violence than non-state organizations."
 * True. But also obvious.

 * That's no reason to delete. This is an encyclopedia; 90% of the information is "obvious". That's the point. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

 * No, 90% of the information should be unique and relevant to the article. Stating that "the sky is blue, except when it's not", doesn't add to Wikipedia. Jayjg 16:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Only national militaries are known to possess so-called "weapons of mass destruction", capable of inflicting massive casualties instantly."
 * Wrong. See Sarin nerve gas attack in Tokyo, or Anthrax in U.S., or Ricin in Britain.  Other actors but states have WMDs.

 * No terrorist organisation has attacked with a weapon of mass destruction; and none are known to possess them. The Sarin nerve gas attack was NOT mass destruction; <100 people died. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

 * Please see Weapons of Mass Destruction; note that Sarin is listed under the related chemical weapons article. Jayjg 16:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Only states have the ability to deprive people of basic living requirements, such as food, shelter and medical care."
 * Wrong. I can do it, so can anyone or any group that wants to.  Statement has no basis in fact.

 * Only states have the power to repress large groups of people. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

 * The article doesn't say large groups of people, and any terrorist group which set off a WMD would in fact do these things. Jayjg 16:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Only states can capture national mass media"
 * Wrong. Huh?  Al-Qaeda and others are great at capturing national mass media.

 * Terrorist organizations can't control the mass media, although they may exploit it. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

 * "Capture" and "control" are different, and "mass media" typically means international media; no state controls that. Jayjg 16:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Rummel (1994) observed, "In total, during the first eighty years of this century, almost one hundred and seventy million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed helpless citizens and foreigners."
 * Statement's true, so what? Almost all of the casualties are inflicted during wartime with multiple combatants (i.e. Axis/Allies, etc.).  Unless you want to redefine 'State terrorism' as "war", and redirect this page to war, this statement can't hold.

 * War takes place between armed combatants. State terrorism is violence against unarmed civilians. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

 * But terrorism would only be relevant if civilians were deliberately targeted for political purposes; Rummel's statement does not distinguish between civilians killed as the result of war, and people purposely killed that way. Jayjg 16:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, removed second sentence of following statement "However, many contend that states cannot commit acts of terror and/or that acts of terror cannot be committed within the scope of a declared war. These arguments hinge on legal definitions and semantic issues that do not reflect common usage and the cognate link between terrorism and the emotion, terror.

 * The second sentence is garbage. It looks like it means something, but it doesn't.  Since the definition that we're talking about is a legal/semantic definition, you can't throw away legal/semantic arguments against it once they are problematic.  As for "cognate link between terrorism....emotion", uh..it's like something out of an Ali G interview.  If someone wants to rewrite the second sentence, give it a go (to make the statement balanced).

 * The second sentence's meaning is clear enough; but it's not necessary, so I'll compromise. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Terrapin 19:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my replies above to your points. You have also removed many other things without explanation; I can't respond to "It's just WRONG" or nothing at all. --style 12:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

= Israel's paragraph - NPOV dispute =

All related discussion regarding Israel's paragraph should be done here. Thank you.

Israeli use of torture on Arab prisoners
For those who dispute reality. Jewish state has a "Law of Necessity" that approves torturing prisoners to protect Israeli lives. --Alberuni 17:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether they did it, but whether the government justified it. As far as I can see, the Supreme Court declared it illegal, which seems to be the opposite of justifying it. Jayjg 17:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't read too well do you Jayjg? Yes, the Israeli government justifies it as necessary to protect Israelis. "The Israeli Supreme Court left open the possibility, however, that in an actual "ticking bomb" case -- a situation in which a terrorist refused to divulge information necessary to defuse a bomb that was about to kill hundreds of innocent civilians -- an agent who employed physical pressure could defend himself against criminal charges by invoking "the law of necessity." " In any case, Israel now ADMITS torturing thousands of Palestinians prior to the Supreme Court decision. Allegations of torture continue and now Israel denies it again. Of course, no one believes them, except those who willfully delude themselves. --Alberuni 17:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Leaving open the possibility of using it as a defense in a "ticking bomb" case is not the same as officially justifying it. Find me an example of a government spokesman justifying it.  By the way, denying it is quite the opposite of justifying it. Jayjg 17:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Allowing use of torture under any circumstances IS justifying it. The fact that Israelis deny specific torture allegations and allegations that torture is routine does not contradict the fact that Israelis also justify it's use in some cases to protect Israeli civilians. You know that. --Alberuni 19:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Israel claims torture necessary?
Israel claims that mass arrests and torture are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens. Where exactly has "Israel" claimed that torture is sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens? Please quote the government official who has made this claim on behalf of the country. Jayjg 02:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You should read this and this and this and this and this and this and finally, to bring you up to date, read this. Torture is a long-standing practice for the Israeli military and secret police and continues to this very day in a routine bureaucritized "legal" form in the ruthless Jewish state. Aren't you proud? --Alberuni 04:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC).

 * Have you found a spokesperson making this claim yet? The court rulings restrict the kind of physical interrogation permitted, and don't describe it as torture; I think the Israeli position needs to be accurately represented, not paraphrased by editors hostile to the country. Jayjg 15:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite the hypocrite, eh? If editors hostile to the subject matter were banned, you wouldn't have anything to do all day. No surprise that the ISRAELI courts don't describe their physical interrogation methods against ARABS as torture. Neither did Paul Wolfowitz describe Abu Ghraib interrogations as torture. They both described them as necessary to protect Israelis and Americans, respectively. Torture is going on right now in Israel. Sorry to burst your bubble.  --Alberuni 05:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It is not NPOV to put words into the mouths of people that they haven't said. NPOV demands that they be quoted exactly, not paraphrase to say what the editor believes they should have said. Jayjg 10:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Israelis claim that routine "physical interrogation methods" (what many others, including Amnesty International call "torture") are necessary. Israelis also claim that in case of a "ticking bonmb" (suspect who knows of an impending attack against israelis) even methods of more extreme torture are acceptable of a court issues "special permits" and these are justified by israelis in order "to save Jewish lives". You know exactly what is going on but you feign ignorance and edit disingenuously in your systematic effort to cover the crimes and atrocities of your beloved Israel. You are a POV POS. --Alberuni 22:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * "No surprise that the ISRAELI courts don't describe their physical interrogation methods against ARABS as torture" (Alberuni's OWN words), yet he is defending in the article "Israel CLAIMS that...torture is necessary" (obviously because it suits his agenda). You just contradicted your OWN argument.  Again. (Wiki really needs a How to form cogent arguments article).  Game - set - match NPOV version.  Terrapin 21:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's really not that hard for one to say exactly what Israel says, rather than what one would like it to say. That's what NPOV demands, in fact.  Please note the No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 22:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Israel claims torture" - 5 reverts Alberuni
Alberuni, you have reverted this section five times in one day; I'm sure you are well aware of the Three revert rule, please respect it. Jayjg 02:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits with atrocious spelling and POV apologetics
Reverted. --Alberuni 20:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disputed Israel's paragraph
Objections against this paragraph should be raised here. For your convinience, a copy of it (unaltered) is written below. The paragraph is based on the previous one, and most of the text was unchanged. MathKnight 20:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the previous version better. The current version's terrible spelling, grammar and extremely biased POV excuses/apologism for Israeli military operations not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article about state terrorism. It reads more like a bad joke or an IDF brochure handed out to tourists at Ben Gurion airport. --Alberuni 20:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I answer your objection in the following days, please be patient. In the meanwhile, try to narrow to make your claims more specific and fix typos\spelling\grammer mistakes if there are any. MathKnight 21:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The previous text was very unaccurate, since it gave no assertion of who accuses Israel of state terrorism and mixed between accusation of deliberate harming of civilians and criticism of tactics. Since no European government or non pro-Palestinian Human Right group (such as HRW or Amnesty) has raised such accusations and never called Israel's actions a "state terrorism", we should point that out. I did mention the criticism they had and I've taken Israel's reply from the orginal paragraph. Only the first paragraph was totally rewritten, the rest of the text remained mostly unchanged. I do acknowledge that Palestinian and Arab spokesmen accuse Israel in state terrorims and it is clearly written in the second paragraph. I ran a quick search in Google and found that the accusation of Israel in "state terrorism" is confined to pro-Palestinian groups and the Arab and Muslim world. Since the former text didn't make those more percise attribute, I replace it with the current text (2) that does. MathKnight 09:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1
'''This is the paragraph under dispute. Please do not alter or change it.'''

During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel have undertaken controversial military percussions and tactics which resulted with criticism on Israel's policy. Most of the criticism by Europe, the UN and mainstream Human Rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas, but they never accused Israel is a policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They do accept Israel's claim that its operation are aimed against militants and suicide bombers, but calling some of the methods "unlawful" due to collateral damage and civilian casualties caused by them. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF try to minimize civilian death toll but civilian casualties are bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias which force urban warfare on Israeli soldiers. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.

Some pro-Palestinians groups accuse Israel in "state terrorism" aimed to attack Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel reject this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.

Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:
 * Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
 * The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel - which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapon stash or smuggling tunnels.
 * A multitude of Israeli military operation conducted at urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and UN fact-finding commission.
 * Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary.

2
During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel have undertaken controversial military percussions and tactics which resulted with criticism on Israel's policy. Most of the criticism by Europe, the UN and mainstream Human Rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas, but they never accused Israel is a policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They do accept Israel's claim that its operation are aimed against militants and suicide bombers, but calling some of the methods "unlawful" due to collateral damage and civilian casualties caused by them. Israel counters that Palestinian terrorists hide in populated areas and use civilians as decoys in order to maximize the civilian death toll, and incite hatred toward Israel. Israel claims the IDF try to minimize civilian death toll but civilian casualties are bound to happen due to the misconduct of Palestinian militias which force urban warfare on Israeli soldiers. Israel is not listed in the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism.

Pro-Palestinians groups and Arab officials accuse Israel in "state terrorism" aimed to attack Palestinian civilians, protesters and members of organizations that it labels as "terrorist". Israel reject this accusation outright, and state that those kind of accusations are only raised by radical anti-Israeli groups.

Some of the disputed Israeli tactics are:
 * Israel's official policy of "targeted assassination" of purported terrorist leaders has been criticized as "extra-judicial execution". Palestinian spokesmen condemn the "target killing" as terroristic, while countries like the United States see them as legitimate self-defense measure against Palestinian terrorism.
 * The use of bulldozers, explosives, helicopters and tanks by the Israel - which resulted in destruction of homes, businesses, farms, and schools have been criticized as collective punishment and disproportionate use of force. Israel claims that destroyed property is owned by accused militants and their families, or that they contain terrorist infrastructure such as bomb labs, weapon stash or smuggling tunnels.
 * A multitude of Israeli military operation conducted at urban areas and refugee camps such as the Qana Massacre, and attacks on Jenin and Jabalia have been condemned as terroristic by Palestinian and Arab spokesmen, although Israel maintains that their military attacks on civilian areas are always in response to terrorist activity in these camps. On April, 2002, Palestinian officials blamed Israel of massacring 500-3000 civilians in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield, but those allegation were refuted by Human Rights groups and UN fact-finding commission.
 * Israel's policy of mass detention without charge or trial of Palestinian civilians suspected of terrorism and allegations of torture in Israeli prisons are also considered by some to be terroristic. Israel claims that mass arrests are sometimes necessary to protect Israeli citizens, and claims that "moderate physical pressure" of a type that many others, including B'Tselem and the United Nations Committee Against Torture, consider to constitute torture, are necessary.

 * MathKnight, you improved your spelling but you still use English incorrectly. What is a "military percussion"? It has no meaning in English. Also, your extremist Zionist POV is glaring. You believe that the only people who can see Israel as a state terrorist are pro-Palestinian and Arab groups. That is false. Not all critics of Israel are Palestinian. Some are even Israeli! I know that's hard to believe in your narrow categorical "us-against-them" view of the world. Lev Grinberg at Ben Gurion University, for instance.   . Your edits are highly POV and inaccurate. And they have been reverted. --Alberuni 17:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * # Sorry to disappoint you, but Lev Grinberg is considered a loony by most Israeli intelectuals. He is a radical pro-Palestinian activist, some even call him a self-hating Jew. He was condamned by almost every one in Israel (including left wing activists) for his incitement and an article he wrote which calls Israel's killing of Ahmed Yassin a "symbolic ethnic cleansing". Can't you find such accusations within mainstream movements and not within radical groups? MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * # As for the rest, see JFW answer. Instead of reverting, please confine your dispute to specific parts and work out an agreed NPOV compromise. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, MK's version is really not bad. If your main problem is his spelling, correct this. And if some phrases are not to your liking then see what you can improve. Reverting is silly - much more can be achieved by tinkering with the POV to become NPOV. JFW | T@lk  20:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Haha. You must be kidding. His version is a completely warped pro-Israeli POV on Israeli state terrorism. It really cannot be salvaged. His spelling was a problem and now is corrected. It's his bias that is ridiculously extreme. That you can't see anything wrong with it, says something about you. Fine, if people want to live with that Israeli terrorism apologism in their encyclopedia, good for you all. "In Ziopedia We Trust." What a bunch of crap. --Alberuni 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Raising paranoic "Elders of Zion" accusations won't bring you anywhere. MathKnight 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel and total death toll comparison
I added a pragraph saying : "In context of 'total human death toll' critics claim  that, Israel 'state terrorism' has caused more deaths, then the Nationalist terrorism Of Palestinians. In addition to death toll, Israel 'state terrorism' has caused 9.6 million Palestinians to become refugees and Israel still denies their right to return" as u can see from the paragraph that i didn't say it is true. I simply said that it is a claim which critics (Palestenians and others) make but they were reverted without explanation on Talk Page. So I think if we have dispute on any thing we should explain it on the talk page then just raw changing it. so plz explain it here on the talk page that why you think they should not be there.
 * with regards

Zain

 * Futher note that it is not editing of existing disputed paragraph. It is a totally different issue not getting into 'civilian' or 'miltary casualities' just mentioning a total human death toll. and not getting into tactics used by either side.
 * Zain 12:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the paragraph you added is not so bad, but it need some clarfications. I believe your paragraph can be worked out and found fit. MathKnight 13:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To what time period does it relate?
 * Numbers on death toll - which years?
 * Number of Palestinian refugees - I didn't find an assertion of 9.6 million, hence I have removed the numbers and added link to article talking about it.
 * As an opening paragraph it should give an overview and not start with allegations and counter allegation.

In context of 'total human death toll' critics claim that, Israel 'state terrorism' has caused more deaths, then the terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. In addition to death toll, [[Israel is being blamed for responsibility of the Palesinian refugees problem, which was created in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Palestinian Refugee
First of all let me explain for what I see as least controversial, that is number of refugees. First I admit the mistake, I entered total population of Palestinians instead of only refugees by mistake. Total refugees outside Palestine are 4.8 million. Total number of refugees living inside Palestine are about 1 million. So adding both you get a figure of 5.8 million refugees.. Old statistics of 1999 can be found here which you can use for seeing number of refugees inside Palestine.. Please see following link for total population distribution of Palestinians including refugees. Data on this news site was quoted from official website of Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. I hope this will clear the statistics for you. Now as it is paragraph of ‘state terrorism’. Time period for death periods is not very important as far as context of this statement is concerned, because I was not able to find any time period what it was not true. If you can tell me of any period when it was not true I’ll be glad for your help. To give you an example of time period during which this statement is true is  Al-Aqsa Intifada
 * Total Number of Israeli deaths: 1,001
 * Total Number of Palestinian deaths:  2,417

 * with regards
 * Zain 15:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Zain engineer, the UNRWA is the UN agency devoted solely to Palestinian refugees; it defines who is or isn't a Palestinian refugee, and they say the number is just over 4 million . As well, the "right of return" is hotly debated under international law; as it stands the law applies to under 5% of the refugees.  Please see the detailed discussion of these issues in the Palestinian refugee article. Jayjg 18:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * UNRWA is only concerned with Palestinian refugees in ‘Near East’(Middle East). Second the figure of 4 million is not ‘official estimate’ of number of refugees, it is merely number of refugees registered with this agencies in its areas. And outside these areas of ‘Near East’ they come under UNHCR.
 * As you can see that the numbers were not exaggerated by me. Please refer to the links which I refer earlier to see more details
 * with regards
 * Zain 21:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The links do not give the total number of refugees, except the UNWRA link. Where is the total number of Palestinians refugees under the UNHCR? The total number of Palestinians is something else again. Jayjg 04:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accommodating both point of views using sections
What is happening here is that, people from opposite political opinion are trying to say opposite things in a same single sentence. In this way there will be no consensus even on a single sentence both due to wordings and due to different ‘factual observations’. Therefore, I am splitting, part of the section which I initially added to accommodate both point of views. With using the wording like ‘claim’, ‘accuse’ and ‘say’. So they won’t be technically incorrect. That’s the method used by controversial topics. This method can show point of view of both parties and decision of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is left to the reader. Here our job is to increase readers knowledge not to change their ‘political point of view’.
 * with regards
 * Zain 21:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that people are trying to fight the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this article. This article is about state terrorism, and this extended debate is out of place here. There are dozens of articles on the Mideast conflict; they should be quickly referenced so the article can move on. Very Verily 00:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Jayjg 04:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've created a summary that is an appropriate level of detail for this article; people wishing more detail can click on the links provided in the paragraph. Jayjg 04:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Israel state terrorism is apologizing for Israel
Israel state terrorism is not describing Israeli crimes as they are. It is apologizing and excusing. Compare to Islamist terrorism where the Muslims are described as terrorist. Here Jews are not described as terrorist. But it is the same thing even though Jews do not like to see it written. --Abdel Qadir 01:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you fully they might give full article, 'reasons of justification of istali state terrorism'. Let me remove it. Not because there might be reasons but this page is not relevent for this. As you can see we can't put 'Reason why Osama bin ladin thought American Civilian killing is justified' may be a link but no description.
 * Zain 10:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Racism and antisemitism are not accepted here. Stop your abusive and racists comments against Jews. MathKnight 15:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As for the rest, there is no agreement that Israel is a terrorist state. On the counterary, most of the civilizied world see Israel as legitimate democracy and not labeled Israel's action as terrorist. Many, such as the US agree that Israel's military actions are legitimate acts of self-defense. Since the accusation of Israel "state terrorism" are highly disputed, the article need to note that. MathKnight 15:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence noting that. MathKnight 15:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apart from Egypt, is Israel still [technically] at war with its neighbour? If so how does that effect the use of the phrase "state terrorism" given that there is a section called "Confines and definition" which defines the use of the phrase? Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I know Israel is still technically at war with Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Jayjg 16:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you ment Iran, and not Iraq. Israel is no longer at war with Iraq after Saddam was overthrowned by the US-led coalition. MathKnight 17:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Iraq attacked Israel in 1948; have they negotiated a peace treaty? Jayjg 17:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Issue
I think many are missing the point. Legitimate Illegitimate is always an opinion. And this section never claims that what Israel is doing is illegitimate! Let me quote
 *  Critics of Israel claim

So now this is completely neutral statement. For further support please see ‘examples of NPOV’, ‘NPOV tutorial’ and other relevant material available on wikipedia. As the statement doesn’t claim that Israel is ‘terrorist state’ (although billions around the world may see it’) but still to reduce NPOV ‘Critics claim is used’ instead of saying that it is legitimate or illegitimate

(please see my talk earlier on the claim on double size of causalities although I personally believe the word ‘critics claim’ shouldn’t be mentioned because this is supported by facts but still I am using ‘critics claim’ to avoid any debate)

Zain 18:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The disclaimer should be readded, as I explained before. Here are the reasons:
 * the article opens with "During the al-Aqsa Intifada, Israel has undertaken controversial military operations and tactics that have resulted in criticism of Israel's policy. European governments, the UN and mainstream human rights groups condemn Israel for disproportionate use of military force in populated areas" but those aren't accusations of state-terrorism.
 * So, the addition "but rarely accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians or in 'terrorism'." was added in order to prevent misimpression and attribute "EU criticize Israel in state-terrorism", which is clearly not the case.
 * Since the criticism conveyed here is ("critics claim") that Israel's military action consist of state-terrorism, it also should be noted that many others disagree. The later mentioned "disputed tactics" can be easily advocate as legitimate legal action of military agains terror (for example: the policy of missile-strikes targeted against terrorist leaders such Ahmed Yasin). Therefore, "Others, such as the United States and its allies, see Israel's military actions as legitimate act of self-defense." should be noted, a specialy when their is a serious counter-claim with a lot of weight (both logic weight as a good answer and influental weight as manifests in foreign and international relations) regrading the criticism.
 * MathKnight 18:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of term 'terrorism' or 'self defence'
Yes I agree many see them as '‘legitimate’ actions while other see it as ‘illegitimate’ different terms are used to describe same actions As it is always POV to say which term is better I have tried to remove the debate by adding them. With giving no preference to any term because here using a single term will be NPOV.

Zain 19:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removing 'NPOV first' or 'cleanup first'

 * I appriciate your efforts, but the results was pretty messed up and it is not clear who claims what. I think Jayge previous version can be an accepted comporomise. What do you think? MathKnight 19:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well we will do cleanup later, first preference is always to remove POV. If we are able to get some where, where we can remove then NPOV banner from Al-Aqsa section. Then we will make cleanup. If we cleanup first and NPOV later, we will have to do double cleaning first with POV-Banner then without POV-Banner. A Messy NPOV article is better then non-Messy POV article. What is use of information when the editor him self tells readers Don't Trust what I am telling you. Of course we should remove NPOV first and cleanup laterz.

Zain 19:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * NPOV dispute is different then factual dispute. It don't say that the information if fault or disputed, but that it may be represented in a bias way or favour one POV over the other.
 * I will try to arrange a bit the mass, but the NPOV will renain until we can all agree. MathKnight 20:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point is not about Legitimate it is about relevance
Removal of material earlier is not based of legitimacy. The reason sited was not that ‘Israel has no reason to do it’ simply that it is article on ‘state terrorist’ and where we should explain what actions of a certain states are viewed as ‘state terrorism’. For example if you see Terrorism you can’t add into that why 9/11 was done what were reason is foreign policy. Not because they are incorrect (although they may be) but it is that they are not relevant to subject title. So please don’t discuss legitimacy here. Try to focus on relevance.

Zain 18:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question of US ‘standard’
Please read Neutral point of view and its section United States-centric point of view Let me quote extracts from it which apply here.

 *  “Wikipedia seems to have an United States-centric point of view. Isn't this contrary to the neutral point of view?

 * Yes, it certainly is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. ........

 * This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people outside the U.S.,......, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter.”

I think above should be enough to answer the question of ‘US’ Standard.

Zain 18:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * While U.S. centric POV is not good, stating the U.S. position on the subject is not, since it is undoubtedly the most influential player in the region outside of Israel and the Palestinians. Jayjg 18:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes all point of views have their place here but I don't think that influence should be given preference here. Like Hitler was more influential in Germany then jews, doesn't mean that, in holocaust we should give his point preference. All Points should be given due coverage. But please as it is article of 'state terrorism', most of the material should be relevant to support it rather then oppose it. For example material related to 'holocaust denial' shouldn't be added rigorously in 'holocaust' article. A link can be given but content should be minor rather then major. To make contents more relevant to the title.

 * Zain 19:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some groups and Arab officials accuse Israel
"Some groups"? Which groups? As it stands, these are weasel words. Jayjg 18:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Debatable edits without discussing on Talk
Please if any change can cause dispute, explain clearly on talk. Specially if it is reversion.

Zain 20:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Good advice for everyone, including you. Jayjg 20:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Limited List on condemnation
In statement condemnation is limited only to European countries, UN and HR groups, missing many others they all condemned so all should be mentioned. (Islamic coutnries, Arab groups, political analysts etc) Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Who are these? Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I mentioned above Islamic countries and you might have seen many votes in general assembly so almost all of them condemed israel actions. If you say there are countries who used the terms other the condem please List (israel and us didn't I know that).

Zain 20:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK I got list too 74-4 votes I think it will help to create list Zain 20:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The article is about State terrorism. Not all that other stuff. Jayjg 20:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I did as per your request. Let me quote you.
 * "Who are these? Please document exactly who they are."
 * Zain 20:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * None of your sources discussed State terrorism. How many times must I go over this?  The topic of the article is State terrorism.  Please provide sources that discuss that. Jayjg 21:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of others in describing state terrorism
Now you have to mention countries other then Arab countries. You missed other Islamic countries and other countries, in others you have to elaborate. And many others.

Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Who are these? Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Islamic Countries i.e. Pakistan, Iran Zain 20:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is about State terrorism. Who says Israel practices State terrorism.  Please quote them. Jayjg 20:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Missing other terms used to describe actions
Many groups used terms other then terrorism like genocide, slaughter etc these also should be mentioned. Similarly the term self defense should also be mentioned.

Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is an article about terrorism and state terrorism, not about those other things. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The term self defence was not used by me. And the mention that it is not terrorism was also not done by me! So if those were mentioned these should be mentioned as well Zain 20:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is about State terrorism. Please state who defends charges against State terrorism with the defense of "self-defense". Jayjg 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Preference of describing terms
As it is the article of ‘state terrorism’ the groups viewing it as state terrorism should be mentioned first.

Zain 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Only those describing it as such should be mentioned. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I mean before who only condemed but didn't saw as terrorism Zain 20:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is about State terrorism. Jayjg 20:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please explain in detail whenever you remove some thing
I have mentioned earlier to Possible NPOV edits specially removal of material requires explanation on talk page. I'll appreciate if you follow wikipedia's rule.

Zain 21:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have explained; the article is about State terrorism, not that other stuff. Would you like to return to the version that existed before your massive edits of the past few hours?  We can do that too. Jayjg 21:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you should honor at least your own statements. You added a statement about condemnation I said you listed few countries then you asked and let me quote you.
 * Who are these? Please document exactly who they are. Jayjg 20:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So it was not me, it was you who asked for giving details that who condemned Israeli actions, with documents. So I added it as per your request!.

 * Zain 21:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I was asking for information about countries condemning Israeli State terrorism. That is what the article is about.  Please provide information about countries condemning Israeli State terrorism, not all that other nonsense you've thrown in there. Jayjg 21:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:State terrorism/Archive 1