Talk:Green Scare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removal of Blog sources 2 Peter Young 3 Not NPOV 4 Terrorism 5 Violent domestic terrorism 6 Anna

[edit] Removal of Blog sources

I have removed the everything sourced to a blog, as they are not reliable and are potentially libelous. I also reinstated the "domestic terrorism" term. Read the source - that is exactly what they were charged with according to the FBI (hence the quotes). I cleaned up a few other things (including attibuting the term "political prisoner", as that is the POV of an anarchist news source). I have no problem with the content of what i removed (although some if it didn't make sense) if it can be accurately cited with reliable sources. Rockpocket 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The sourcing for this article is problematic. We need to find mainstream news sources, not independent media, no blogs or personal websites/pages, and no websites where people are free to post their own stories. If the material is accurate and notable, there are bound to be reliable news sources available. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

God, why is Wikipedia more conservative than the mainstream press, acadamia, and just about every other 21st century institution when it comes to sourcing? You people live in the stone age Chanders1 11:59, 30 May 2006.

WP:V - every idiot with webspace and a subversive agenda does not qualify as a notable source. Rockpocket 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

but every idiot with the monetary funds to host a mainstream media outlet IS? -KJB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.190.143 (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Peter Young

The AP article about Peter's new charges wasn't printed many places (I think it came out on Christmass). It can be read in its entirety on his support site [1] or if you want log into siouxcityjournal.com they have the same article. [2] Dumpster 08:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the AP source is fine for reporting his charges, but i can't see anything in it about it being unusual for the states to charge after federal charges. That was what i was querying, though its fine as it is, i think. Rockpocket 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV

Looks like this article is very biased and supportive of the animal rights movement. For example the External Links has many sympathetic links of which most are irrelevant, but not a single FBI or government site. Also words like "liberated" and categorizing this as mass hysteria is questionable. Someone with expertize in this field should try balancing this. Lapinmies 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is about hysteria among environmentalists, making it difficult to avoid using mainly pro-animal rights sources. While not an expert per se, I have been widely involved in its development (and i most certainly not a sympathizer, infact i'm usually classed as the exact opposite - see Pro-Test and animal testing!). I take your point about the external links section, the "liberating" and the mass hysteria category, i would have removed that myself had i noticed. However, those excepted, i don't believe it is POV, as the convictions indictments are explained as fact, the intro describes the feeling among the community and the criticism is sourced. Is there other specific you would like changed to balance the article? Rockpocket 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better already. Good additions and rewording, I don't have any major objections with this now. Lapinmies 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for you input. Sometimes when you are too close to an article, its difficult to see the bigger picture. Taking a fresh look, i think it was a bit unbalanced. If you have no objections, i'm going to remove the dispute tag now. I'll try and keep a close eye on balance in future. But do put it back if you feel it becomes one sided again. Rockpocket 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

I replaced the term "domestic terrorism." The page said that the indictment charged people with domestic terrorism. This is incorrect. The FBI alleges that the defendants charged in the indictment committed acts of domestic terrorism, but none of the individuals charged are facing terrorism charges. Half of them aren't even in jail. Whether or not it is appropriate to label people, who go out of their way not to hut people, terrorists is debatable even in the mainstream news media. [3] I am not trying to remove the term terrorism from the page I think the fact that the FBI is trying to paint these people as terrorists is an essential part of the story, I just think that the facts need to clear. Dumpster 07:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the domestic terrorism stuff below the descriptions of the crimes saying that the FBI considers the crimes to be acts of domestic terrorism. This should make it clear that they are not charged with any crimes called "domestic terrorism," but the FBI's claim that it is is not omitted Dumpster 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, Dumpster. The reason i added it back was because that was the language the FBI press release used - but i agree the rewording you have used is more accurate and fair. Rockpocket 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violent domestic terrorism

I'm reverting the criticism of the use of the phrase "violent domestic terrorism" for a few reasons:

• The source you cite does not explicitly call the crimes "violent domestic terrorism". Infact, if you read the sentence carefully, it doesn't even explicitly claim that these specific crimes are classified as violent (though one could infer that). Therefore to add the word yourself infront of the phrase "domestic terrorism", only to shoot it down with statistics is both unfair and misrepresentative.
• The word "violence", by definition, can include direct action against property or inanimate things. Thus not being listed as an official "violent crime" by whatever criteria one might choose, does not preclude is use as an adjective in this case, especially as it is not being used to refer to the crimes we are talking about specifically. Rockpocket 00:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• The State Department source you quote doesn't, as far as i can tell, explicitly define terrorism as acts against people only: The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. If we accept "violence" can be against property then it does not follow that "targets" must be human.
• It just isn't relevent. We have stated the FBI's position, we have stated the ELF/defendent's counterpoint. Thats all we need. If we are going to include complex logical justifications for each POV into every counterpoint we are going to have a very long article that no-one will read. If you feel strongly about this, add it to the article here. Rockpocket 00:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From Eugene Weekly[4] "Of course, the Bush administration has a different definition, but even it's not consistent. The State Department terrorism definition focuses on violence against people, but the very broad FBI definition of domestic terrorism includes any politically motivated crime, including property sabotage. Even protest acts as small as clogging a toilet or graffiti are included in the FBI's lists of domestic terrorism incidents by animal rights and environmental groups.The FBI describes such political property damage as "violent." That contradicts the rules in the FBI's national Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. In the UCR, the leading source of U.S. crime statistics, the FBI defines "violent crime" as murder, rape, robbery and assault."

I think that it is important to include the FBI's stance on ELF/ALF but I think that criticism of the FBI's terrorism definition should be included. According to the FBI's definition pacifist Christian groups like Ploughshares are violent terrorist organizations. As far as the State Department definition goes I think violence against non-combatants does not include inanimate object or buildings which are also non-combatants. Dumpster 01:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not our place, as an encyclopaedia, to criticise anyone or anything. We simply describe what others say or do. Cherrypicking definitions from one agency (which clearly is meant to define crimes against the person) to condemn the reasoning of another (which is talking about politically motivated crimes) is not encyclopaedic. That may be fine for some opinion piece from a local newspaper, but not for stating as fact in Wikipedia. Whether the FBI's definitions are flawed or not, it makes no difference to the fact that they have labelled the ELF as a terrorist group. ELF disagree with that, and we have reported that too. Its not for us to take sides by trying to undermine either POV, especially since the sources being quoted are not explicit in what they say. Rockpocket 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna

I think there should be more info on Anna, the snitch informant/provactour who turned in the Auburn people. Perhaps even a page on her. This is the latest story I've seen on her. The Ungovernable Force 06:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The general feeling i get, is that detailing such accusations against individuals based only on info from alternative media is usually frowned upon. I guess if there is verifiable evidence of the reports (i.e. legal testimony or mainstream newsprint) then you could give it a go, but activist assertions or the word of lawyers for the accused is pretty unreliable in terms of verifiability. Rockpocket 06:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well I'm having my own problems with infoshop right now. I don't even know where that is originally from, I just originally saw it on infoshop, but a lot of their stuff is reposted. There are probably other sources of info on her though. The Ungovernable Force 06:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are mainstream stuff to back it up, then i have no problems with adding it. I'm just concerned about legitimising a witch hunt without basis in verifiable fact. The activist crowd are openly admitting to Green Scare paranoia at the moment, they are finding snitches behind every tree. Rockpocket 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think anna's pretty clearly an agent. I agree that we can't be too paranoid though--I was having that conversation today actually (oh no, I was on a cell phone, maybe the FBI was tracing it!). I'll look for any more mainstream articles on it. The Ungovernable Force 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They'll be knocking at your door (of coming through feet first)! If you can find anything at all in the mainstream then i'm all for expanding her content. Rockpocket 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've actually had a socialist college group I was involved with watched by an agent during a club day, and at our meeting that night. I think it had to do with the green scare though, since there were some arrests in my area. Actually, User:Adrian, who was hanging out with me at the time, even though he's not a radical (as far as I know) here on wikipedia is the person who tipped me off. He's a reporter for our school paper and recognized one of the two guys from one of the court hearings (he was wearing a trenchcoat and sunglasses, which was totally cliched). And the fact that the other one who posed as an anarchist came out and asked me if I was interested in doing anything illegal, and then asked if I had heard of the ELF a minute after I met him kinda gave it away. The Ungovernable Force 08:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. Really sophisticated entrapment technique: "interested in doing anything illegal?" Obviously straight out of FBI school. To be honest, i'm about as far as you can get from a green activist (infact, i would most likely be seen as a legitimate target by them), but in writing this article i found it genuinely concerning how people indulding in a little bit of alternative activism, who had the misfortune to hang out with the wrong people at the wrong time, suddenly find themselves facing 20 years in jail for conspiracy. Then again, focusing the community anger at the informants themselves is kind of playing into their hands, i would think. There will always be someone else willing to snitch, its the people controlling them that are the real subjects of concern. Rockpocket 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrested three young activists in California who had purchased ingredients at Kmart to make a plastic explosive—not realizing that their pal "Anna," a twenty-year-old anti-war protester with pink hair, long legs and an overtly stated hankering to blow shit up—was an FBI plant paid $75,000 for her troubles. One of the guys, with whom Anna sometimes shared a bed, now faces seventeen years behind bars [url http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11035255/the_rise__fall_of_the_ecoradical_underground/1]