Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to Conspiracy theories on Wikipedia
Category - - - Deletions -

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Conspiracy theories. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Conspiracy theories}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Conspiracy theories}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

Contents 1 Specific notes about conspiracy theory AfDs 2 Conspiracy theory articles 2.1 State terrorism by United States of America 2.2 The 9/11 REcommission Report 3 Conspiracy theory miscellaneous

[edit] Specific notes about conspiracy theory AfDs

• An inactive page that is similar to this exists at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. That page is inactive, but is kept for historical purposes.
• To avoid strife, remember that the first sentence of Conspiracy theory defines the term as follows

"A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, or historical events) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations."

[edit] Conspiracy theory articles

[edit] State terrorism by United States of America

State terrorism by United States of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Completely OR. Jtrainor 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 72 references and the nominator can still say with a straight face it is original research? Bad faith nomination. Admin should close this AfD snowball keep, like the last nomination. 69.150.48.48 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep can an article be nominated five times without somebody misunderstanding WP:POINT? The fact it has survived four times before and people renominate every week we should not be having this discussion untill next year. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not because the alleged crimes, transgressions, and ethical lapses should be hidden or buried, but because the term "state terrorism" is so problematic conceptually and burdened by shrill polemics. Ironically, this article actually discredits the POV it is trying to promote. --Leifern 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agenda piece. WP:SYNT and OR. Dman727 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though it should be Allegations of State terrorism as it was before. Some of the material is valuable, some poor synthesis. Obviously not "Completely Original research" as the numerous references show. But all this has been argued many times before.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, as per Zleitzen. Ford MF 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move per above and prune anything that smacks of OR/POV, if any info falls into that category. 23skidoo 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Utterly keep. USA is the only country that have been found guilty of state terrorism (Nicaragua v. United States). // Liftarn
  • Comment. That may be true, but my personal objection is with the title of the article which states as a confirmed fact that all information in the article has been confirmed and that the US has been found guilty on all examples given. If someone wants to shrink this down to an article specifically dealing with occasions on which the country has been found guilty, that's one thing, but there are too many allegations here for it to be declared as fact in the title. No objection to the article itself except for the concern noted above, which is standard. 23skidoo 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. Stating it is fact is very POV. Yaf 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Another bad faith AfD by the same person who wants to get rid of the Israeli apartheid article. A quick glimpse through the sources shows the NY Times, Asia Times, the Guardian, etc...all reliable sources. If there are actual instances of OR in the article, then it should be edited accordingly. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. Tarc 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this crap Is this an encyclopedia or a dumping ground for the work product of propaganda departments in dictatorships? You've just gotta love it when the article's opening attack is from the government of Cuba, the worst, longest-lasting human-rights-abuser in the Western Hemisphere is the source charging the oldest democracy in the hemisphere of terrorism. And please, don't end your tour of Nevernever Land without scrolling down to the bottom, where that paragon of human rights, Hugo Chavez is not only quoted, but has his words of wisdom bracketed by the Big Quotes We Wikipedians Use For Memorable Statements:

“

One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons, They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state.--Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, 2005.

”

And Noam Chomsky is cited for more enlightenment. There's a well-respected moral force if ever there was one. If the editors in Fidel's propaganda department want to take a break from their dirty work, they can create articles on allegations against the United States from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan and (this should be a fun one) Idi Amin's Uganda. These would meet the editors' standards of reliability just as well as the ones they're using for this article.

On second thought, let's not delete it at all. Let's use it for our Wikipedia front-page feature article.

On April 1. Noroton 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This page is POV pushing at its worst. I do believe that a page like this one can exist, but first it needs to be blown up and started anew. Pablothegreat85 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note I moved the article to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. I still think the article should be deleted, but this way the title isn't inherently POV. Pablothegreat85 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup, then keep. Especially I think we could lose the last two sections ("Application of United States Government's own definitions" & "Quotes"). Actually, the best section is the obne on Latin America. I understand how it can be seen article is trying to push a point (good move by Pablothegreat85 to put in "allegations"). Might it be better balance to include to the extent possible U.S. government responses to the alledged incidents? I think this article is well researched, and contains many reputable/non-shady souces. Finally, sacrasm is not appropriate in AfD debates. Jakerforever 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Sarcasm is a singularly appropriate response to editors who have created a travesty of an article by doing the exact opposite of what Wikipedia was created for. Instead of trying to inform people with an honest attempt at the truth, editors have taken charges from some of the worst beasts on the planet to lie about the enemy of those beasts. When you carry water for criminal dictators with blood on their hands, sarcasm should be the mildest of the responses you should receive. The editors who perpetrated this article lose all assumption of good faith because of their actions. Noroton 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Response. What I'm saying is that you can vote without giving a talking head editorial . It depresses me when things get uncivil on these talk pages. Let's all vote, state our reasons, and get on with our lives. Jakerforever 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Final response on this topic It depresses me when propaganda is pushed out into a Wikipedia article, and it alarms me when that is treated as if it were some sort of minor mishap. You may see something a little inappropriate in this kind of article. I see one of the worst possible things someone could do on Wikipedia: promote lies that end up promoting killers, which is what we all should know several of these regimes are. Some people can't get on with their lives because they've been killed. The regimes that kill them have a history of propagandizing in order to turn around charges of terrorism and human-rights violations on the countries properly accusing them. So there are more reasons for being responsible on Wikipedia than just avoiding libel or copyright suits. And I've been focusing on the article more than the editors. Sorry to trouble you with the troubles of the world. Noroton 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Then I get the last word. Noroton, I voted to keep this article. What are you insinuating? That I am pushing propoganda? I resent statements such as "Sorry to trouble you with the troubles of the world." I consider myself quite the cosmopolitan, not that it's your business. Furthermore, you speak with an arrogancy that implies you know what is lies and what isn't. There are reputable sources listed. I think this article merely suggests that the U.S. is not preacher-sheets-innocent, and to claim otherwise is naive. The article was appropriately changed to "Allegations of ____". There can be statements in favor and those opposed. We can have a civil discourse on the topic! The latin american section topics in particular are not merely out-from-left-field conspiracy theories. Shouldn't we strive not to, what's the phrase, whitewash our history? Jakerforever 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • If you want the last word, don't ask a question. I insinuated nothing about you (unless you contributed some of that crap in the article) other than that I didn't think you were taking seriously enough the atrociousness of what these editors are doing. If incivility depresses you, calling someone arrogant is a bad idea. I'm not sure allegations of U.S. human rights abuses in Latin America qualify as "terrorism" as defined in this article. I addressed your other comments below, before you made them. Noroton 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Restoring my post which was deleted by Jakerforever)*Keep: I'm unsure where the nom's concerns are founded. .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! When I was trying to add my post I think you were editing at the same time...I was cycling through the back-buttons to get back to my post, and I think I may have have saved over this. No ill will intended! Jakerforever 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The article can be improved, but the topic is valid and sourced. There are people living on earth(even in America) who do in fact accuse the U.S.A of state terrorism among other things. Wandalstouring 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part to be rather irritating as I have never been involved with this article or with any of the previous AfDs before. Furthermore, the number of AfDs an article has survived have no bearing on it's suitability for deletion at a later date-- I suggest you ask someone who was involved with the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but still ended up deleted. Jtrainor 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and keep. Use the normal editing process to correct anything that lacks sources meeting WP:ATT. Edison 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move content, remove the article itself For one I'm suprised there is no mention of the IRA here, but then the USA never acknowledged their terrorist behaviour (900+ UK military deaths aside) but that's just my POV and I only say it to demonstrate a potential problem with this article: I do worry if some delete votes are coming as a result of pro USA feelings and some keep votes coming from anti-american forgien policy people, I know this is a dangerous thing to say (and am prepared to take the flak for it, and im not personally attacking anyone let me make it clear) but this article, as it stands, is a fueling station for a giant tanker of wiki-conflict in its current form. I think it needs to be handled differently, why would these points not be in articles about the relations between the USA and the country in question? The inclusion of this and this incident over this and this is open to POV as well (not just the wiki users, but everyones) In my (humble) opinion, this current format is open to much to dammage. SGGH 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 23skidoo illustrated one of my concerns perfectly above, pointing out that the title implies guilt for america in all cases. SGGH 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Response No, the subject of American support for the IRA deserves its own article (and maybe it has one, I haven't checked). But this is an article about "state" terrorism. Please see my next comment below.Noroton 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- allegations are so rare as to not deserve a page.--Urthogie 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Looks to be a POV/Allegations page. Tirronan 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this discriminate collection of information. A change of name may be justified. WP:SYNTH implies that some conclusion is being suggested not implied by the sources; if so, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that the argument is that the article implies the US is guilty in all examples shown SGGH 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Although I have strong objections to this article, I would support a responsible treatment of the subject using reliable sources and a neutral point of view. But (a) there's little hope of that, given the fact that the article has been allowed to devolve into the intellectual atrocity it is now; and (b) it would be better to build up an actual NPOV article from the ground up, using reliable sources rather than endless tinkering with this creaky mess.Noroton 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete these sorts of articles are the reason that WP is not taken seriously. Clearly WP:SYNT violation, maybe the logical next article is Corporate terrorism by Wikipedia and cite the Siegenthaler case, various allegations of bigotry among editors, and other notable faux pas. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep without such articles, WP will not be taken seriously outside of the United States. An honest discussion of the way one country is viewed by those elsewhere is appropriate, with respect to any country at all. They're difficult to write, but that is no reason to omit them. I agree with Noroton that the article is a POV disgrace at present. If we omit articles with POV problems, this represents the abandonment of a basic idea of WP--that of being able to write in a NPOV by community consensus. DGG 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So outside the US only takes WP seriously when we have "POV disgrace" articles so long as the POV is to their liking. So we give foreigners what we think they want, even if they don't want it, and even if it's useless. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I may not agree with the authors, I may not even agree with the article at all, but it IS something that WP needs - to show ALL sides of an argument. Noam Chomsky may be a linguist-turned-political-expert, but there's more crackpot theories than are presented here, and most of them aren't as well thought out or referenced as this one. - NDCompuGeek 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The title is fine. If we have a single reliable source which says that the U.S. has been accused of state terrorism, or has committed state terrorism, let alone having many reliable sources, then the article title is fine. State terrorism in Guatemala and State terrorism in Sri Lanka both follow this title scheme, albeit since U.S. state terrorism does not generally occur within the U.S., the current title is more appropriate. The U.S. Federal Government deserves no more special treatment than any other. In short: I'm not a fascist, but I don't want the Fascism article to be deleted. Let the article stand. Erin Go Bragh^talk 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I'm glad you mentioned those two other state terrorism articles, because I changed their titles too. They are now Allegations of state terrorism in Guatemala and Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Pablothegreat85 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Good for you, acting without consensus again. Your solo act of changing the title does not consensus or fact change, my dear. By the logic behind making changes like those, I should go and change The Moon to Allegations that a celestial body is orbitting Earth. We all know that the Moon is there (well, most of us). We have reliable sources telling us so. we also have our common sense. We also have reliable sources telling us that the U.S. has committed acts of state terrorism. We also have our common sense. It's just beating a dead horse to both changing the article titles like that. It serves no purpose. Erin Go Bragh^talk 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Nice straw man argument. The bottom line is that most of the acts listed on this page are disputed as to whether they are really examples of state terrorism. No rational person disputes the existence of the moon. Pablothegreat85 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in four languages (English, French, Italian, and some Asian language I don't recognize). It's survived 4 previous nominations. Get over it. Let it go. It needs to cleaned up, but the topic deserves coverage. Vert et Noir^talk 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not a solid argument. Read WP:CCC. It's good that we re-visit the validity of pages like this from time to time. Pablothegreat85 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valid topic, with plenty of reliable secondary sources to back up these allegations. Like it or not, the USA has planned and/or committed many acts that some people consider to be state terrorism: come on, tell me Operation Northwoods wasn't terrorism. And even crackpot allegations like the 9/11 conspiracy theories are still nevertheless notable allegations as long as they are sourced and covered in an NPOV manner. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete this is a highly anti-American POV article and a conspiracy theory. These things are not encyclopediac articles. It is also POV because I don't see a State terrorism by Iran article of one for many other known terrorist countries.--Sefringle 01:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In any case the title is wrong (allegations issue mentioned earlier). Just because there have been many people who have accused the US doesn't mean much really, Goebbels said: "If you repeat it many times, people will believe it" - not to mention the criticism against Wikipedia that "if you can get enough people, you can change the truth" - I mean, what the hell is this "Pentagon damaged not by Flight 77 but a cruise missile" doing in there? Are we going to have a serious encyclopedia or invite people to dump all sorts of conspiracy theories? Quotes by Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky? Are these people reliable, neutral or represent scholarly mainstream academic opinion? Most of the stuff listed in the article, serious ones like Gladio et al, already have their own articles and can be covered in other articles like Foreign relations of the US or Cold War or etc. Not to mention policy problems per undue weight, WP:WTA and most common name. Labelling of most of the content listed as "state terrorism" does not reflect academic concensus: as such undue weight definitely applies. I know what Gladio was, however, on hindsight most historians do not label it as "state terrorism". Even though this might not be the case for most of the contributors of the article, I do think that the article is showing some signs of Anti-Americanism. And the argument that "some people consider as state terrorism" is not a valid argument either: it doesn't matter if half the world believes it. Heck, most people in the world do not believe in Evolution, but the article is still there. This article, because of its title, has inherent POV issues. Baristarim 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A CHALLENGE: A call to put your effort where your mouths are A significant number of the "Keep" proponents here say they don't want to delete the article because the subject deserves mention in the encyclopedia, but they say they think cleaning it of unreliable material is necessary. Despite the best intentions voiced in this discussion, the fact is, it's the FIFTH discussion on deleting this article and after the past four, the article is a mendacious mess and a perversion of Wikipedia principles. In the past (and currently in the case of List of people who went to heaven alive) I and other editors have achieved consensus in keeping articles by working on them to make them better. In the case of this article, doing so would probably involve facing down a number of editors who have made the article what it is today.

So here's a challenge. All of you who said the article should be changed, both among the "Keep" group and the "Delete" group, will you join me, for the seven days following the close of this discussion (if the conclusion is "Keep", and that's the way it looks like it's going for the fifth time) in doing the following:

1. Support removing as unreliable sources any regimes commonly recognized by international organizations as significant human rights abusers. (parts in italics just added in. Noroton 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) )
2. Reviewing with an open mind any deletions or additions to the article and participating in a good number of discussions on the talk page that concern questions of fairness and reliable sourcing (relying your own best judgment, sense of fairness and what you believe to be Wikipedia rules in each case).
3. Removing material that you agree isn't reliably sourced after three days of having it identified with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. I know it's a relatively short period, but editors interested in the article should have it on their watch list and should know the article is under the gun by now, and I'm not going to ask for a pledge of more than a week of attention, so we should act relatively fast.

I'll help out by doing some research, questioning some parts of the article and suggesting rewrites and additions to other parts. Obviously, anybody else who wants to should be working on the article as well. I won't be voicing my disgust in any discussions on the talk page and I'll work toward consensus and a neutral article. If I can do that, can any of you pledge to help, or are your opinions about keeping this malformed article (even if you don't mean them that way), simply supporting a biased article?

A list of those who said, essentially, "Keep" but reform the article in some way (and I'm asking for every other contributor to this discussion to make the same pledge):

• Zleitzen
• 23skidoo
• Tarc
• Jakerforever
• Wandalstouring
• Edison
• DGG
• NDCompuGeek
• Vert et Noir

If five of these nine editors (and I'll be adding more to the list as others join the discussion and make the same point) will tell me they'll help to improve it and will participate in helping to form a consensus if there's a dispute, then I'll change my vote to "Keep" and help work on the article for a week after the discussion is closed. If, after attempting to improve the article, it is again overrun within months by egregious non-NPOV and bad-sourcing edits and yet again becomes a mess, I'll be nominating it for deletion discussion Number 6 and contacting each and every optimist on the list above to solicit support for removal. And we'd all have a convincing argument for removal at that point. Is this proposal fair? Is it not in the best traditions of Wikipedia? Is it not an attempt to come to consensus after five deletion nominations? Is it, on its face at least, not a good-faith effort to do the right thing? Noroton 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pledge to work on it for at least a week (if joined by at least five editors from the list above) Noroton 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you're going to do this, it might be a good idea to stub it and then build up towards a good article. Pablothegreat85 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply The point is to do it with consensus, which I don't think would support that. Will you take the pledge, Pablothegreat? Noroton 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I wasn't one of the folks who voted to delete, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to have someone on your side also working to fix the article. If you would like me to help you, I would be happy to oblige. Pablothegreat85 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm asking that people on all sides of this discussion work on this article. I've just boldfaced that part of my post above to make that clear. Thanks!Noroton 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You can like it of not but the USA has planned and committed many acts that might be considered terrorism: backed several assassinations of Fidel Castro, back up the Fulro terrorist organisation, back up the mujahideens in Afganistan and Pakistan and etc. --Saigon punkid 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Same thing as said by User:Saigon_punkid Sukael \o/ 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If anyone is concerned about the encyclopedic nature of the content in the Cuba section, here is how Encyclopedia Britannica handle some of the core allegations.

"The New York Times in July published a long interview with Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban-born, CIA-trained terrorist who had been convicted of bombing a Cuban airliner off Barbados in 1976 and had served nine years in a Venezuelan prison. In the interview he admitted to more recent attacks against Cuban property, claiming to have organized the 1997 bombings in Havana hotels and to have had his activities financed by the late Jorge Mas Canosa and other leaders of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). The Interior Ministry announced that three Guatemalans and two Salvadoreans were to be put on trial for their part in the bombings. Described as mercenaries, they admitted to working under the direction of Carriles and Arnaldo Monzón Plasencia, also of CANF." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

The main difference is that the wiki article is framed as allegations from the Cuban government, due to the theme of the page being "allegations of..". These particular "allegations" are borne out by numerous verifiable sources, (CNN, NYTimes, BBC etc) admitted to by the perpetrators many times and regarded as fact by commentators and experts on the matter. So its difficult to see any problems there, if Britannica can report the claims, than so can we. Some of the later material in the article I'm not keen on, I don't think the quotes are necessary, nor the US's own definition. But other than that, notable allegations have been made in verifiable sources. That's pretty much the end of the issue. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment then Zleitzen, you should have no problems with the removal of unreliable sources such as the Cuban government, correct? And will you agree to help with improvements in the article as I've suggested in my challenge? Noroton 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It might find a softer name, but the Roman state would have recognised what it was about. Midgley 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete – The very title gives away the inherent POV inasmuch as it asserts “guilty as charged”. If there was even a pretence of NPOV, the title would (still, as Zleitzen points out) be prefixed by “Allegations of ...” I doubt many of those voting “Keep” (and not “Keep and rename”) have not bothered reading the articles on “Terrorism” and “State terrorism” or they’d know that there is no such thing as a broadly acceptable definition of what constitutes “state terrorism” — much less one accepted in international law — against which any party could be held accountable. Moreover, if there were, the target would necessarily have to be against governmental regimes, not the nations themselves. NPOV would then, at the very least, require a title like “Allegations of state terrorism by the government of the United States of America” (or possibly a particular administration of that government).

I’m afraid, though, that a simple article renaming won’t restore this article to credibility. The reason is because it must rely almost exclusively on biased sources – and biased to a single “side’s” perspective. Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone has voted “Keep” following Leifern’s perfect summary of the reason for his vote to “Delete - not because the alleged crimes, transgressions, and ethical lapses should be hidden or buried, but because the term ‘state terrorism’ is so problematic conceptually and burdened by shrill polemics. Ironically, this article actually discredits the POV it is trying to promote.” Since “state terrorism” has no useful, broadly acceptable definition, it can only be employed as a pejorative. Furthermore, without such a definition, there is no basis upon which to include or exclude any particular accusation. Therefore, this article can only stand to serve as a collection of allegations against which there may be no objective defense — which is "useful" only to those that have an agenda. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (sorry for the long essay to follow) Thus far, most of the keeps are because (1) the article is well sourced, (2) US activities are occasionally called state terrorism, and (3) it is a useful collection of information. While these are all fine reasons to support an article, none are going to convince someone not to vote delete. Most of the delete votes are due to OR or NPOV. Baristarim's vote includes a mention of how this isn't "mainstream academic opinion." The OR issue is something that the article does need to get rid of, and it does hover on SYN as is. But to me, the NPOV/undue weight argument needs to be turned on its head, in this case. The people talking about US state terrorism are not going away, they are important in political affairs throughout the world. This article is about their platform. From creationism to the flat tax, articles in WP about non-mainstream ideas are capable of addressing the ideas in a serious way which is upfront about the relative discredit the ideas have in the mainstream, but that there is sizable group who share the idea. So to me, the article should embrace its NPOV-hood in a way that says, while this topic involves a certain POV, it is not mainstream POV in the US and much of the western academic world. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To address what I'm suggesting for this article, let me address Leifern's comment. Liefern is, in my mind, fundamentally correct. But, in this case, the polemic value of the term 'state terrorism' is part of the article. To me, this article is a collection of the scholarship of people like Blum, Chomsky, and Gareau, who use charged language in their discussions of US activities. This is also true of the charged language by leaders such as Castro and Chavez, who use their opposition to America as part of their platform. In both cases, the charged language is linked to how the events are organized. So to discuss their ideas, one must admit the application of non-neutral language on a certain set of events in US foreign policy. In the individual events, there are a great many people interested in understanding what role the US had and why they did what they did. But in collecting these events, the goal is to show a pattern of behavior that establishes the US as a pariah in the minds of some audience (voters in Columbia, readers in Cambridge, etc). So to me, the first task is to rewrite the lead to express that the accusations of state terrorism against the US is not a case of people trying to uncover the truth (this is very important in the individual events), but rather a certain way of collecting a certain set of US activities for certain purposes. Then the article becomes an outline of the events that are collected in this way, who is including them as instances of US state terrorism, and why they are included.

Norton, I'm thinking the first step in improving the article is to get some consensus on the direction (my idea is certainly not the only one) of the article on the talk page, and to start a {{todo}} list there. I'd be happy to help out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Smmurphy, a Solomon amongst us...  :) Jakerforever 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm Solomon, I have to have the sword ready. Norton is right when he says that he'd be ready to wade into the article, to bring it to NPOV, but it can't be done alone, and it will take some work (its a swordfight, not just a case of a baby cut in half). Certainly Solomon wouldn't have waited until the fifth nomination to act. In any case, I'm blushing at such a suggestion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Smmurphy, your rationale above is a great outline of the reasons for having articles on "state terrorism" or "terrorism" or on American foreign policy issues — which no one has a problem with. The problem with this sort of article is twofold: First, it can only be built up from singularly biased sources (and few, if any, "neutral" ones), so it must be an inherently POV article; and second, since there is no consensus definition of what constitutes "state terrorism", and so the article's only purpose can be to list everything anybody who dislikes the "defendent" has ever used the term against the target. Moreover, this is true whether you have a list of accusations of "state terrorism" by the US, USSR, Cuba, Iran, Great Britain, Liechtenstein or whatever. This is true of accusations of "terrorism" as well, and currently usage of the term is deprecated as inherently POV; more neutral, but accurate terms (like "rebel", "insurgent") are employed instead — or one might cite a declaration by an entity to state that "So-and-so has declared that XYZ is a terrorist organization." Yet "terrorist" has a "firmer" definition than "state terrorism". Certainly if we consider a country to be a "living person", this would never get past WP:BLP. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What sets this article apart from something like the post-WWII discussion of interventionist cases in United States non-interventionism is the use of the term terrorism. The US State Department Counterterrorism Office [1] publishes lists of acts that it calls terrorism [2]. We can thus feel pretty secure calling those events terrorists attacks, and have articles about those, even though many would not call them terrorist attacks. My idea of this article is to show what has been said about US acts of terrorism. This is encyclopedic in my mind because some important people (from Chomsky to Chavez) have used this as a major part of their platform (be it to get elected or to get their message out). If Ross Perot ran for US president again, imagine how long and crazy the article on flat tax would be. I think of this kinda in those terms, this is a major platform for selling a personality. It can be fixed, but it needn't be deleted. Sorry if I've repeated myself, let me know exactly where we aren't connecting, and I'll try again, if you like. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm against deletions of any topic of substance, even if the article, like this one, is blatantly agenda-driven. I'm also a realist--no amount of clean-up will keep out the agenda bias, which will be re-worded and put back in. You need look no farther than most of the "reasoning" above for keeping. The comments about polemics and charged language just above are dead-on. Nevertheless, a cyberspace encyclopedia offers the means of inclusiveness that paper encyclopedias could not: greater detail, greater diversity. I personally find it appalling that articles on any Harry Potter novel have greater depth and quality, so to speak, than articles on Oliver Twist--but there is a place for both. Even without a means of effectively enforcing "encyclopedic tone", I still vote to keep.--Buckboard 10:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Per verifiable information. --Ragib 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: We've been here before... --Nyp 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason or necessity to delete a long-established well-referenced article. Wooyi 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: As per Wooyi, The article is well referenced, the fact presented may be not proven, the title only says "Allegations", and not state terrorism by /of/in America.
• Keep, its a notable topic, deserving an article here on Wikipedia. For issues with content, AfD is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep csloat 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory miscellaneous