Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

American bias

I added the term terrorism to this article because as it is defined: violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. I know this will be reverted by some biased pro-American. I suggest we discuss this. Thanks SeiteNichtGefunden 22:38 08/07/2007 (GMT)

Once again, this accusation of "terrorism" is the typical "out of context" comment. The ENTIRE war was terrorism!! Ask about it to citizens of Chongqing, Nanking and Changde and Manila who were bombed, raped, killed and plagued....Maybe you should begin by looking to the vivisections performed on humans by Shiro Ishii. Do we need to add the word "terrorism" to all these articles ?!--Flying tiger 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this person chose not to answer, I guess I will answer for you. Any state act of war would also be a state act of terrorism, since it is meant to induce terror on the survivors. Since "Dissent Magazine" is being used as a "reputable source", I guess we can next allow the magazine of Neo-Nazi's to be used as proof that Germany was an innocent victim in WWII. I was under the impression that extreme claims needed extreme documentation. I will not revert it, but it seems like we will soon see the Burning of Washington by the British, the Burning of Atlanta by the Union, the Fall of Carthage, and every other act or war generalized into an act of terrorism. The fact that some cannot see the difference between 9/11 and an act of war is stunning. The fact that they can then criticise those that can see the difference is even more stunning. CodeCarpenter 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the word terrorism to describe these attacks

The definition of terrorism is: violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals. I believe the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki match this definition. Altough it was commited during war-time it is still an act of terrorism. If I am correct, murdering innocent civilians for a political/military goal is still an act of terrorism. Please let us discuss this issue so we can reach a solution. Thanks, SeiteNichtGefunden 23:21 08/07/2007.

Yeah, thanks for accusing everyone of being "biased" before we've even said a word. I may be an American, but I am also a scholar of Japanese history. Please assume good faith.
  • The issue is still a very hot topic in scholarship, and there is far from any agreement on the justifiability of the event. No matter what we discuss here, that would not change the fact that scholarship, and the world as a whole, remains quite divided on the issue. It would be inappropriate and not NPOV to represent it otherwise.
  • Terrorism is a fairly new term, or at the very least, it has very particular and powerful connotations in the more recent post-war context. One of the most crucial things that a historian must avoid is reading backwards into history, applying the morals or attitudes or terms of today to yesteryear.
Though there are historians who have described it as a war crime, as unjustifiable, as unnecessary, as cruel and inappropriate, it was still done for military strategic reasons, and not for "political or ideological reasons". Whatever you may personally believe about American imperialism or whatever other kind of ideological conspiracy theories, the majority of the world does not believe that this was done for ideological reasons, and thus, even by the definition you present it is not terrorism.
This isn't about being pro-American or pro-Japanese; it's about approaching history objectively and understanding the context within which events happen. The world has changed, and we must consider the events of the past within the context of the attitudes and precedents of the day. Just as my advisor reprimanded me yesterday for talking about "free market capitalism" in a 17th century context before Adam Smith was ever born, so it's the same here. Our 21st century attitudes about war, about Japan, about nuclear weapons, about terrorism, cannot be applied so easily to an event which took place in a completely different era politically, culturally, and ideologically. Or are Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Alexander the Great, all the Crusaders and everyone else in all of history who ever killed for ideological or political reasons a terrorist too? LordAmeth 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So, free-market did not exist before Adam Smith formalised it and gravitational forces did not exist before Newton discovered them? 202.172.114.158
Just to be absolutely clear on my position and my intent, I will point out that there is already a lengthy section on the controversial nature of the attacks and the debate over them both at the time and since then. Personally, I believe this section needs to be cleaned-up and tightened up considerably, but I am by no means oppposed to a scholarly, objective discussion of the scholarly debate over the issue, and I imagine that most editors on this page would agree. LordAmeth 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, you're right. Since we're on this English Wikipedia, we really can't have an unbaised perspective. So I asked on the talk page for the Japanese article here. If THEY have a consensus as to weather this can or can not be called a terrorist act, will you drop the issue? I'll translate the comments, or you're welcome to do so on your own. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I will not. Firstly, I do not believe there is any inherent bias in an English wikipedia, as people from all around the world, including quite a number of Japanese, contribute here. Secondly, it doesn't matter what is agreed upon at the japanese wikipedia any more than it matters what's agreed upon here. As Antandrus points out below, standard reference works (i.e. reliable, published, scholarly sources) do not bear any consensus on calling this "terrorism", and so we should not either. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to invent history (see WP:OR) but to simply represent it the way the professional scholars have determined it to be. As I said before, I am not arguing "for" a pro-American point of view; I am trying to be as unbiased as possible. I certainly admit that the bombings could be viewed as excessive, unjustified, unnecessary, even, maybe war crimes. But terrorism is a highly-charged and loaded term with powerful contemporary connotations which should not be applied to a historical situation, as Antandrus says. LordAmeth 11:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Response to Seite (following from the request on my talk page): you're attempting to apply a contemporary usage of a highly-charged and loaded term to a historical situation.
Please read about the history of the Second World War, paying close attention to the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides as it drew to a close. Both sides used every weapon they had available in that colossal death-struggle. Nothing about the actions of either side is comparable in any way to "terrorism" in the common sense in which that term is used today. I would not even use the word to describe the Blitz, the bombings of Coventry, the destruction of Rotterdam, or even the ovens at Auschwitz. It's the wrong word.
Once standard reference works on the Second World War use the word "terrorism" to describe those attacks, then we may cite it and use it; until then it is an original coinage, original research, and a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Two quick comments. First, it is not necessary for any Wikipedian to have to agree or disagree whether or not the act was one of terrorism. SNG's argument based on definition, even if true, is not alone sufficient warrant to state anything in the article. Second, the counter-arguments by Antandrus etc. -- appealing to "the scale, scope, and intensity of the actions of both sides", historical issues, etc. -- are irrelevant for exactly the same reason. The issue is not the truth about whether or not the act was one of terrorism. Rather, it is an issue of who in the community of scholars says what, and whether it is verifiable; and in both instances, both criteria have been satisfied. In addition, the counterargument simply invents of standards to shut out a significant and respectable minority's point of view. "Consensus" is not a requisite in a section of an article which is explicitly set up to discuss POVs. We can discuss a "consensus" when presenting things in the objective third-person voice as facts; when discussing POVs in a neutral way, no such thing is required. { Ben S. Nelson } 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism?

I added this characterizing term, as many have used it, and as such is notable and fair to state, in the following opening sentence under the opposition section: "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crime against humanity, and/or state terrorism. " Mongo has reverted my addition--now twice-- even the softened compromise version added by another editor (which I accept). I have reverted Mongo, as I feel his justification is not valid. He states "POV" but that is exactly what NPOV calls for--that we report on all the notable POV's, using reliable sources. To supress some POV's that you don't like, in fact, is POV pushing itself. But, in the spirit of discussion and not edit waring, I bring my case here and invite Mongo to make his. I'm sure we can reach consensus on the dispute.Giovanni33 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. [1] They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.[2][3][4] [5][6][7][6]

Historian, Howard Zinn writes on the point: "if "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."[1] "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," writes Professor Mark Selden.

Similarly, Michael Walzer wrote of it as an example of "...war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."[8]

Zinn, quotes the sociologist Kai Erikson:

“ "The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?" ”

Mark Selden, a professor of sociology and history at Binghamton University and professorial associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, author of “War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library),” writes, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively 'the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."[2]

Professor Selden writes: “Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

Heads of State have also repeated the claim. President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calling the dropping of the A-bomb, "the greatest act of terrorism in recorded history." [3]

Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism. He states that “The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism.” Falk discusses the public justifications for the attacks, as follows:

“ "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets" (Falk, State Terrrorism versus Humanitarian Law in War and State Terrorism). ”

Given the many notable figures I list above who use this term, its POV pushing to exclude its incorporation here into the opposition section that deals exactly with these critics POV over the use of the A-Bomb on civlilians.Giovanni33 07:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Only the last mentions "state terrorism".Ultramarine 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
They all claim it as terrorism, and they are talking about this State action. Hence, State terrorism (unless you are going to argue that they are not talking about this action, or that the action was not that of a State)?Giovanni33 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you keep reverting, and then saying to see the talk page. Objectively, one of two choices exist. (Please let me know if there is a third, but it seems pretty binary to me).
1. Add a controversial change, and then keep readding it until concensus is reached, or
2. Suggest a controversial change, and then add it once concensus is reached. You seem to support 1, while others support 2. If your change is correct and should be added in, then it can be added. But in the meantime, allowing people to throw in changes and then claim it can stay until consensus is reached is not the wikipedia way. CodeCarpenter 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I support option two, which is exactly what I'm doing here on talk, instead of reverting.Giovanni33 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, in addition to the above cited material, I'll expand my sources here with a discussion of the main notable academics, so we can see this POV is a signifant one. Below, I argue per policy why it merits a mention. Here I'll add the discussion of the sources for review, and as support for my claims:

Here is an anthology of some of the best sources that I rely upon to support my claim that the term is notable, and significant: "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library). Contributors include Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University).

A study of this literature reveals that far from being an issue secondary, extreme, or insignificant POV, the atomic bombings being characterized under the concept of state terrorism are a legitimate part of the academic landscape.

Amongst these analysts, who adhere to such a characterization, the primary themes tend to be i) the transgression of moral barriers to the destruction of civilian populations ii) the legacy of massive civilian bombing for subsequent wars in Asia and elsewhere, iii) the legacy of nuclear weapons use and iv) the rationalizations employed by government leaders such as Truman and subsequent apologists v) the question of whether Nagasaki is a case of gratuitous slaughter of a civilian population. These are all themes central to the critics who opposed the bombing, and each of these academics writes on these topics.

For Mark Selden, the transgression of moral boundaries that permitted atrocities by air power was the most important outcome of the U.S.- Japan war of 1941-45: noting that "Thereafter, the slaughter of civilians in area bombing of cities became the hallmark of American warfare. Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

For Richard Falk - "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets>" (Falk, State Terrrorism versus HumanitarianLaw in War and State Terrorism, Mark Selden ed.)

I will also point out that there is no shortage of sources that express this point of view, mostly, of course among the new left or liberal political spectrum, but also in some libertarian POV's. For example, this is typical: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-06.htm which is a POV from the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA). And, of course Znet Mag: "The clear intent, both of the fire bombing and atomic bombing was the terrorizing and killing of civilians and the elimination of Japan's cities." [4] And to show its a POV that is widespread enough, take a look at this from Lewrockwell's article, entitled, "Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It states, "Having Imperial Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism." [5] Here is an academic paper that makes same argument: http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Another Zmag article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 I quote, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare. As we mourn the 2,800 victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, including Americans and citizens of more than twenty countries, we should simultaneously recall the millions of civilians who have been victims of American bombing and other acts of terror during and after World War II." Also, we have heads of States express this POV and make the allegation. For instance Presendient of Venezula, Hugo Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History He was addressing the opening ceremonies for the World Festival of Students and Youth, the Venezuelan president paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: [6] Richard Falk, who is cited above, wrote: "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism"--he has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism, as well. Another source:[7]

Here are other that give a voice to this POV. The best one that comes to mind is probably, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by historian Gar Alperovitz, a historian and political economist, is president of the National Center for Economic Alternatives. He is also Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, and a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, and formerly a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and of the Institute of Politics at Harvard; he has served as Legislative Assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives, Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State. His other books include Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, and he has written numerous articles for The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic Monthly, and many other academic and popular publications. Other books that acknowledge and mention this POV, and some argue for it:

  • "Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial" by R.J. Lifton and G. Mitchell Putnam. This book offers a truthful portrayal of how Truman and other American war criminals perpetuated the lie that we had no choice but to drop the bomb.
  • "Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of "The Good War" by Michael Zezima
  • A People's History of the United States: 1492 — Present by Howard Zinn
  • Against Empire by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
  • The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum
  • Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti
  • The Culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky
  • The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media: Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News by Norman Solomon
  • Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.
  • The Hidden Persuaders: What makes us buy, believe — and even vote — the way we do? by Vance PackardGiovanni33 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by notable individuduals

There has been an edit war going on here about "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crime against humanity { and | or | and/or | other variations } , state terrorism".

OK, guys, put up or shut up. I don't have a POV here, I just want the article improved. Maybe this will work, maybe not — edit the following list as appropriate; I'll provide an example to start this off: -- Boracay Bill 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism categories:

Notable individuals, their criticisms, and cites:

Criticism as war terrorism. citation: [8] copyedited 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, there is not much talk from the side that has removed my edit (Mongo and his friend Tom). They claim its fringe. But that is disproved by the fact that I've produced several notable sources. When we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities (Falk-Princeton, Selden-Binghampton, Phd at Yale, Yo,Hong Kong, or for that matter Howard Zinn), we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability. While they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable. Of course, the characterization is also notable as there are lots and lots more sources I can provide to show this is characterized by those who oppose the bombing as acts of state terrorism--but I just stuck to the most notable academic sources.Giovanni33 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into any edit war, but I think its hardly neutral, just as I could quote Chomsky, a notable individual, his viewpoint on Israel is far from neutral. We could also start a list of notable individuals who say that the bombing was necessary, a point already addressed in the article. I can't follow your citation as it appears the link is broken; however, and while some of the people listed were against the bombing can you show that they considered it state terrorism (a term whose use is more modern and politically charged)? Gtadoc 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Correction, link now works; will read it, though its author is pretty far left I won't comment further until I have time to read what he says, not sure how citing his opinion would justify inclusion of pov.
There is no such thing as a nuetral POV. NPOV is only acheived by reporting on all notable POVs with consideration given for undue weight, i.e. in porportion as their view is refleted within academia. Mentioning that this term as one of the terms used to describe the nuclear attack by the US, fits in with the fact that its a notable POV. Yes, these academics are left of the political spectrum, but so what? I have sources from libteratrians too, who share this pov. But this is not relevant. We report on all notable POVs, given proper weight, and reliablity of the source.Giovanni33 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure there is, and it seems you are the only one pushing to add what I think is safe to call a politically charged term, into the intro no less. The point is you can't put in a blatantly non neutral term just because someone said it, as per my example already about Chomsky, this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. Also, as mentioned, the claims don't really support the modern meaning of the term, however, I do understand that for political reasons some modern writers wish to call it that. Also, you're citing a single source who uses the term in one sentence that is not even the main contention of the article and uses it w/o explaination or justification, hardly strong support for inclusion of the words. Gtadoc 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the term is politically charged. So is the term “genocide.” But WP does not censor or fail to report on politically charged terms. That is not the criteria. The criteria are notability, and reliability of sources. I note that this article does report that some scholars regard the nuclear attack against Japan by the US as “genocide” even though it doesn’t fit the modern definition of the term. Are you opposed to report that? This article currently reports that. This is because its follow WP rules. Your rules about ‘politically charged, “etc” would mean we couldn’t report on almost anything. What is deemed politically charged is itself a matter of POV. That is why NPOV requires us to report on all significant POVs.
Also, there is no such thing as a single POV that is somehow "neutral." I think you have a fundamentally flawed conception of the term. Neutrality, may be utopian, but certainly from a single source its impossible. It’s only approximated when we report on all POV’s including minority pov’s, provided we use attributive language, and the sources are reliable, from notable people. This is the relevant criteria WP uses, and why we are obliged to include this “politically charged” term as one of the terms that opponents of the dropping of the A-bomb describe the action.
Also, to correct you, I’m not the only editor. We have had 4 total editors here who have restored this term to the article. Three, if we include you, have taken it out.
I’m not sue what you mean by the claims don’t support the modern usage of the term. Maybe you don’t agree with how the term is being used by these academics, and we are free to cite contrary POV’s that dispute its usage, but we can not censor these notable academics, who are writing on this subject in their relevant area of expertise. Again, it may be a minority POV, but given the many notable sources I’ve listed about use describe it as an act of terrorism, it’s a term that is correctly reported on per WP policies. As I said, when we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities (Falk-Princeton, Selden-Binghampton, Phd at Yale, Yo,Hong Kong, or for that matter Howard Zinn), we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability. While they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable.Giovanni33 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We should try to keep disagreements at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States from spilling onto other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree...that appears to be the proper page for what Giovanni33 wants to add. Gtadoc 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So far the only one you cited (that I saw) was Walzer, and he only uses the term tangentially; the others referenced are talking either outside their field of expertise, offering personally opinions, or making political speach (Chavez...he actually hurts your case)...in any event, there is only one source with an offhand reference that is part of a work on a seperate topic, nothing on point, and lots of soapboxing. The other terms (war crimes, etc.) I have no issue with. The modern usage of the term state terrorism is clear, its a politically charged term that adds no meaning beyond the two phrases already listed. How does state terrorism add anything that crimes against humanity and war crimes do not? War crime in particular is a more accurate description of how the opposition to the bombing described it. Also, previous authors have a point that regardless the wording is pov and is not proper for an encyclopedia article, regardless of the source...spin by the Israel-Palestine pages if you want to see other examples of that. Also, as pointed out earlier, if you want to use this as an example of state terrorism you'll have to go around changing every page for acts of war in which civilians died, indeed, this example is hardly the worst. Gtadoc 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Look again. I provided serveral notable academics, not just Walzer. These other academcs are not outside their field of expertise. Check their credencials again. Chavez is a notable as a head of state and critic of the US. This is about critics POV, and how they describe the US bombing. All notable critics count, to show the term is notable.Giovanni33 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side not, the Howard Zinn page...I only read the first few sentences when I saw he had no idea what he was talking about regarding this issue, his comment about hundreds of thousands dying in the following years of radiation poisoning is blatantly untrue, with numerous scientific reports (read EVERY, including from Japan) indicating death tolls from radiation poisoning to be in the hundreds (check out the latest BEIR report). His "facts" on the page that he uses to make his argument are so far off that I wonder if he even knows that page is up! Gtadoc 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, its not up to you to dispute his claims. That is not how WP works, either. We report on what notable scholars say, and if its disputed by other sources, we report that too. As you know these figures do range. So I'm sure what point you are making here, other than saying you disagree with what Zinn is saying. He does give a source, btw. He writes: "The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 turned into powder and ash, in a few moments, the flesh and bones of 140,000 men, women, and children. Three days later, a second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed perhaps 70,000 instantly. In the next five years, another 130,000 inhabitants of those two cities died of radiation poisoning.
"No one will ever know the exact figures, but these come from the most exhaustive report available, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, put together by a team of thirty-four Japanese scientists and physicians, then translated and published in this country in 1981. Those statistics do not include countless other people who were left alive, but maimed, poisoned, disfigured, blinded."Giovanni33 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I need only to cite all seven BEIR reports, and the thousands of radiation biologists involved in their construction, to contradict this (as already cited in the article). In any event, that was an aside, which is why I said "as a side note". In any event, you still haven't replied to my previous problems about the term state terrorism, and I'd be happy to shift this one section up if needed. Gtadoc 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources can disagree. Nothing new here, and the point is not relevant. Replied to your proble, above.Giovanni33 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they can, and they can also be pov, factually in errant, and unencyclopedic. I think Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is a more appropriate place for you to make your additions, as it is we have farely balanced for/against sections in this article. Gtadoc 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Zinn may be notable for something, but he didn't read Hiroshima and Nagasaki very carefully. We went through the book's casualty estimates over a year ago: /Archive 7#Casualties tables. So, yes, we're perfectly justified in not giving credence to his claims.
—wwoods 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
That is why we should always stick to the best sources, and use multiple sources. Mistakes with numbers can happen. Anyway, this is all rather irrelevant since this is not the issue at hand. We are not using Zinn's figures for the article. We are only using a term that notable critics of the bombings use to decribe it, and for that Zinn and the other academics, heads of states, etc. prove the point, and pass the test for notablity. The term is used enough that we can report on its usage. Again, Im not suggesting we give undue weight by adding a buch of text, but simply recognize that state terrorism, IS one of the notable lables that has been used by critics. To deny this is to deny reality. In WP we report, holding up a mirror to what a notable poitical spectrum of academics who write about the subject say--at least the concept/term that they employ.Giovanni33 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, notable is not the test for inclusion, and above that is the standard for npov. As already mentioned, regardless of how notable the author if they are simply soapboxing or making political speech (like your sources) then it hasn't a place here. As mentioned, there is already an article for you to include your thoughts in, and while I appreciate that you already contribute to that article I would appreciate it if you kept the debate to there as this article as is is more accurate and neutral with the wording already in place. I know you would like to make your own "antistate" comment, but this is not the place for soapboxing. I can find a notable author who will say GWB is a jackass who pisses in the wind but that doesn't mean I can include it on his page, simply because I kind can someone notable to say it is not enough. Similarly Chavez, an intellectual ant compaired to some of the other authors, is famous for making political speech; hardly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. In the end we have to look at the addition and say 1)is it neutral and 2) is it adding something not already stated in the article (or in this case, stated better/more accurately already). It seems hardly worthy to argue over the inclusion of an extreme and inaccurate statement when what needs to be said is already in the article. Gtadoc 05:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, you fail to grasp the point, and thus your response is creating a straw man fallacy. This is not an article, nor any article, for me to include my thought in. It’s not about me making an "antistate" comment either, and it’s not about finding a notable author to quote any particular statement, nor is it about including Chavez or anyone else. It’s about inclusion of a term/concept that critics used to describe the bombing in question. The test is NOT neutrality, since we are not composing text, a statement, paragraph, or section. Then we have to worry about making sure it’s balanced. We are talking about POV term. So the only relevant question, thus, is: is the POV term notable enough among those critics to include it in the section that deals with how it’s characterized by them? Its not a question of neutrality (utopian anyway), its a question of reporting the political landscape of notable POV's relevant to the question. NPOV demands that we give some voice to these different perspectives (even minority ones), and accuracy demands that we not exclude a verifiable part of that political landscape. When we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities, as I have presented: Falk-Princeton, Selden-Binghampton, Phd at Yale, Yo,Hong Kong, or for that matter Howard Zinn--we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability. While they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable, and to ignore the term all of these academics have used, is to ignore a significant segment of the critics conceptualization of the meaning of this war crime. And to do that violates NPOV. You seem like a new editor. We can open a RfC, if you wish.Giovanni33 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've grasped your point, its the only point you've made, while at the same time you've failed to respond to mine and others'. The demands of NPOV are met by the current language, you are arguing for an addition that adds nothing and changes the balance of a paragraph, something you seem to think you are not doing. Legitimate minority views are already addressed, and several that you cite (Zinn for instance can be disregarded for aforementioned reasons, others only tangentially address your issue) are more accurately reprented by the current language. Again, you fail to answer what the inclusion of the word state terrorism adds that crime against humanity and war crime do not. Also, being that its a political term (being used out of its common definition, none the less) it doesn't really belong there. As there is already a seperate wikipedia page/article for your contentions it seems that you already have a place to put your claims. Gtadoc 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that the demands of NPOV are already met, fails to address the claim that adding the additional term is justified per the review of the sources which prove this notable concept is one that is used by several of the critics. I agree NPOV is met. This article has a nice balance. I disagree that making it more accurate by adding this term that is also a notable means by which critics designate their view of the nature of the war crime, upsets that balance. Why does it not upset it? Because the term is not mentioned at all. If I were arguing for adding a paragraph, such as I included above, then you would have a point. Simply stating this term, as one of the terms used by critics, does not. NPOV, in fact, is hurt by the refusal to give a proper voice to this notable perspective, even if it’s a minority view. Given that its minority, a simple acknowledgement that the term is applied suffices. You imply that this is not a legitimate minority view, but you fail to support that claim. The sources provided above prove it is a legitimate minority view. War crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide--all claims this article reports on--each add something, each have a distinct difference in the concept (esp. genocide), yet it’s represented here. Is not that term (genocide) being used out of its common definition? Yet, why is it in this article, and how to you reconcile your possition regarding it with the arguments you are making now? They seem be applying a contradictory standard. I agree all those terms deserve mention, given notable sources. However, glaringly, the concept represented by the term State Terrorism, is missing. This should not be ignored. If you can include "Genocide" and the other terms, by the same token, you cannot exclude state terror. Each term represents a legitimate and notable concept, and all are required to accurately reflect the political POV spectrum that the section attempts to report on, at least ostensively. And, yes, they are all political POV terms (so what?) We do not get to exclude one term because we do not like it. To do this is a defect that must and will be corrected per NPOV.Giovanni33 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the difference is that the other terms were and have been used as legitimate criticism, now and then, the term you wish to include is simply a current term that is used to politically soapbox. I've also already addressed why several of your sources are not encyclopedic, and others have mentioned that some of the sources are obscure to the extreme, others are tangential and not directly claiming what you want them too. That it is not a legitimate minority view was already supported by myself and another author but you simply brush it aside. Still, the term state terrorism is clearly being used outside of its normal definition by people espousing opinions. As noted by myself and others, it is not encyclopedic to include the opinion columns or political rants of even notable figures; and yes, by including the term you do make the first paragraph much more imflammitory. For example, notable right wing Jewish individuals of note say some things that, if I were to include in the Israel/Palestine conflict pages, would promptly get removed as even though its notable it doesn't meet the standard for inclusion and its extreme pov. You try to make the point that genocide is no more extreme, so fine, perhaps we should remove that word as well...you try to justify an extreme addition by saying something is already extreme, and then accuse me of contradictions? I suppose we can rewrite the entire section, but then, you are the only one pushing for the change, I'd be happy to come to some sort of compromise, but you seem hellbent on getting your way regardless. Gtadoc 03:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And, to quote WP:NPOV "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. " Gtadoc 04:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


You seem to have appointed yourself as the judge of what is to be considered legitimate criticism, and what is just 'political soapbox." Lets review what policy says on this, which since you are quoting policy, I'll do the same below.

You claim the sources I provided are not encylopedic? Kindly make the case. I would find it interesting how you can claim that viewpoints expressed by several notable academics are not legitimate. To repeat, when we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities such as: Prof. Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University), and Historian Howard Zinn, we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability, and represent proof that this is a significant political POV. I see you no longer repeating the silly claim that its not "neutral." See policy I quote below, and review the expanded discussion of my sources in the above section. While I fully acknowlege they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable, and the POV is signifacant, given the prominence of these critics employing the term. You quote policy above, but you leave out the other part. The part you quote above only pertains to fringe views, and extreme minority, which would be hard or impossible to name prominent adherents. Since ths is obviously not the case, as I've shown above, it falls into the category of a significant minority POV. The policy elaborates the differences here (and I highlight the one that applies to this point:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;'
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Again, Prof. Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University). or for that matter Howard Zinn--are notable adherents who are easy to find. Thus, it is not a fringe, extrmeme minority, who are illegitimate. Would you like me to add even more, above, and quote what they say? Perhaps you should first look up the relevant qualifications of each of these academics. If you did, I believe you would not be refering to them as illegitimate or not signifant, notable, adherents.

Let me further quote the relevant policies: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." That is exactly what I'm advocating. But what are you doing? I think you are violating these relevant policies concerning NPOV:

""Information suppression" "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted."

"Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds)."

"Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability."" Also, keep in mind this is about a political view. Here is what policy says about that:

'Moral and political points of view" "On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics. We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated. One common problem with politics is the natural tendency of considering the major political opinions of one's country as "normal", while considering those held in other countries as "abnormal", silly, or misguided.'

Also, I point out things to avoid: Things to avoid" "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.'

And, even if you felt it was not "nuetral to add"--still its a violation of policy as explained here:

'Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V.'

The sources I provided pass WP:V. Finally, you say its no encylopedic, and my addition is just like quoting someone's personal opinion, propaganda, soapbox, etc. My edit does not fall into this category. Here is the policy discussing the issue:

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, aspires to be authoritative by definition. Including the opinions of "some people" in an encyclopedia article implicitly gives credibility to their opinion and vouches for its relevance, because if it weren't important or relevant, it wouldn't have been included. Given the unique nature and status of Wikipedia, this makes its articles troublingly easy to exploit in this way in order to spread hearsay, personal opinion and even propaganda. The first line of defense against this is verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for the sort of support a claim must have to survive a challenge in article space. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative.

Per the above sections sources (I just exanded them), the term has been shown to be relevant, informative, and notable, representing significant adherents. Per the above policies, your objections are over ruled, and the addition of this term must be included per NPOV. Please review these points, the sources above, and reconsider your arguments.Giovanni33 06:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy you quote doesn't support your position and in fact supports keeping it out. The view that this was "State terrorism" is not relevant or important. It's sources are dubious. Just because someone said it, even in a book or newspaper, does not make it a significant viewpoint. Put it in the biographies of those that hold these view, but don't spread the Undue Weight of propaganda in this article. --Tbeatty 07:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikistalking me to this article? You say the sources are dubious. Care to back up that claim? You say its not relevant or important, but that is your own personal POV, and that is what is not relevant or important. When you say, "just because someone said it," you distort that its not just someone, nor is it one person. Tell me why you think these following sources are only "just somone" who are "not relevant or important,": "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library). Contributors include Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University), and Howard Zinn (History, Pol.Sci. Boston University) The fact is that these are multiple high quality reliable sources, and your declarations to the contrary doesn't make it any less the case. Facts are stubborn things.Giovanni33 08:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please save the trolling accusations. Since I've commented on your insistence on including this material in other articles, it is hardly 'wikistalking' to comment here. Those views are not significant enough to warrant inclusion. Further, you have no concensus to add it. Howard Zinn is simply not a reliable source for notable views on U.S. foreign policy. There are certainly reliable and notable sources that the U.S. is hegemonic. There are even fewer, though still reliable and notable sources that espouse the view that the U.S. is imperialistic. There are no reliable and notable sources that establish the U.S. committed state terrorism when they dropped the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The burden is on you. Where were these notable views referenced and repeated in scholarly works outside the Chomsky/Zinn Walled Garden? I'm glad to see you have an open mind that you might be wrong and are willing to listen to what others have to say about the quality and reliability of your sources. --Tbeatty 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you simply ingnore all the academics I cite, and focus in only on Zinn, yet provide no argument to substanciate your unfounded claims. You just repeat that these sources are not reliable, but you fail to state why you consider them not reliable. Can you at least cite a source that states such, to support your claim? I say you can't because its a false claim. This is about reporting what others say, not what you say. You can repeat your claims forever, but it remains meaningless unless you can cite equally notable and reputable academics to support your rather unfounded claims. Since you don't (and I know you can't), your claims should be correctly dismissed, whereas mine remain valid and supported.Giovanni33 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to point out that if you read the WP NPOV policy in its whole it really seems that it is contrary to your assertions. As per your sources, it has already been pointed out by myself and others that the few that support you 1) Zinn is not reliable and his article has so many factual errors in it that its hard to take seriously at all 2) the others only offhandedly refer to your contention w/o supporting it, or in other cases are just pushing their opinions, 3) are fringe to the point that they are not needed for inclusion and change the tone of the paragraph that you wish to insert them into 4) are trying to make political points, not academic arguments, by using politically charged words and 5) fails to add to what the text already says yet at the same time decreases its neutrality. It seems that there is also a consensus against the additions, and it has already been pointed out that a page already exists that per WP policy can already be used for the minority viewpoint you wish to add. You seem to conveniently leave out "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Such a page already exists, please make your additions there. "We should try to keep disagreements at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States from spilling onto other pages. Tom Harrison Talk 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) " Gtadoc 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are repeating your claims, but failing to support them. Each of your points, I have addressed, and refuted. It’s false that this is a fringe view. I cited the relevant policies to be used to determine when something is fringe and when it’s a significant minority viewpoint. You ignore that and just repeat your belief. That is dogmatism. You focus in only on Zinn and ignore everyone else. That is disingenuous. I also point out that even with Zinn, the issue you bring up with his numbers is beside the point since we are talking about the notability of the term/concept used. You claim its politically charged POV, but you ignore the policies about its usage, I cited above about political views. Do I need to repeat it? You say they are not needed, but explained how it’s different in meaning than a war crime, crimes against humanity, or genocide. You ignore this and say its not needed. What basis do you conclude that? NPOV demands inclusion of significant views. Its not like I'm trying to write a whole paragraph or even one sentence. Its just ONE WORD, added to the sentence that talks about the notable terms used by critics. Its a violation of NPOV to exclude a term because you don't like it, or think its politically charged (so what? Read policy--that is allowed! We are obliged report on it, correctly per core policies). You want to exclude it on the excuse that its decreases neutrality?! Didn't you bother to read the policy I cited above on this very question? That is not a valid argument. Need I cite it again? Saying that "on the whole" it doesn't support my reasoning is a claim that remains unsubstantiated. I left out the point about WP is not a paper encyclopedia because its not relevant here. I already know this POV can be dealt with in great deal in an ancillary article (as it is), however that does not mean it can't be mentioned at all in the main article. Again, adding ONE word, is not going into it at "great detail" so your point on this matter is irrelevant. If you keep disregarding policies, then we need to start on the dispute resolution process with other editors to arrive at a proper understanding and resolution of this issue. I don't see you as even paying attention to the policy I’m citing or addressing the issues with valid arguments.Giovanni33 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back. Its ironic that you say you've "answered" all my arguements, when really you've just been repeating yourself continously and not really answering anything. Its been explained to you that the npov policy does not support your contention, by no less that 3 editors and an admin, and you've already been told of the proper place for your additions by several people. I suppose all thats left is to ask for consenus on the issue and then leave it with that as you clearly are unwilling to listen to the multiple people who have commented nor are you willing to address any compromise. Also, I see that you have begun wikistalking, is there a WP policy about this? Scanning your talk page has also been enlightening. By the way, do you plan on going through every article on wiki about events in wartime in which large numbers of lives were lost and adding that you think they're state terrorism? Or is there a reason you just picked this one...? Gtadoc 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I aswer you again, let me ask this: what compromise are you talking about, here? I havn't seen any on your part.Three editors supported my edit on this page and reverted to it, so consensus is not as clear as you imply. But what is your compromise for this article?Giovanni33 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The compromise was to rewrite the first paragraph to try to make it neutral and keep balanced sourcing, perhaps not having your addition but linking to the main page for 'state terrorism'. Also, the editors that reverted did not join the discussion they simply reverted what they looked at for 2 seconds and thought was sourced, all that have entered the discussion have not supported your view. I would be completely willing to add a 'from the main article' tag to the top of that paragraph, that way you could still get in your far minority view w/o disrupting the balance of the already presented views. Gtadoc 04:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks for being open to a compromise, and responding to my question. I am also open to this, and would agree, provided you support the discussion/inclusion of this POV on that that ancillary article dealing with the subject of allegations of US state terrorism. Just recently the most conservative editors have started to blank the section, making any link to it here meaningless. If you can help with supporting its addition in that article, then we can have a meaningful link in this article, and the POV can be reported on over there instead. I am also open to a rewrite here. Thanks.Giovanni33 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be mostly gone on the weekend; but if someone wanted to try to rewrite the paragraph here that would be appreciated (in a npov tone of course). I think that might work better than linking to the other page after having gone and read the entire page...its a complete mess; I don't think its neutral at all (it needs more than just US bashing, sorry) and the opposition section just repeats what the section for allegations said and the two need to be merged anyways. It needs a ton of work, but I understand with so many people arguing its not likely to in the near future approach anything near neutral from one perspective or the other. Gtadoc 19:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Walzer as a source

Strange that Michael Walzer is chosen as a source. After all, this is a man that feels the bombing of Dresden was justified, because it saved the lives of Jews, but that the bombing of Hiroshima is not, because it only saved the lives of Americans and Chinese. http://www.nplusonemag.com/walzer.html has a review of one of his books, which details this hypocrasy. In addition, since Walzer is an editor of Dissent Magazine, he op-ed piece is not what would be considered a reliable source, since it proclaims in advance that it is promoting an opinion. And, the style guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories says "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community." Using an Op-Ed piece in an opinion magazine as it it were a reliable source is a real stretch of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. To quote there: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." Creating a term like war terrorism out of an article that the author himself states "This is not going to be a straightforward and entirely coherent argument.", and is so non-notable that even the magazine's own website doesn't show a link to the Winter 2002 issue (see http://www.dissentmagazine.org/archive.php). And therefore, this removal causes the rest of the house of cards to fall as well. I will not revert, since I am not one of the regulars here, but I would suggest that the regulars review the standards for this link and others in this batch of inclusions. CodeCarpenter 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)