Talk:Shock and awe/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Shock and awe" trademarked? 2 Comparisons with Blitzkrieg 3 Comparisons with WW2 Japan 4 Psychological Effects 5 Comparisons with Terrorism 6 Origin of term: "Shock and Awe" 7 Additional connection to be made in popular culture section. 8 Larnue the dormouse; synonyms of "terror" 9 Etymology of term "casualties" 10 Should we be blanking or marking banned user sockpuppetry? 11 Shock and Awe needs to be changed to "Rapid Dominance" 12 Requested move 12.1 Move survey 12.2 Discussion 13 youtube 14 POV dispute tag 14.1 Removed sections 14.1.1 From 24 January version 14.1.1.1 Shock and Awe vs. Terrorism 14.1.1.2 Criticism 14.1.2 From 16 April version 14.1.2.1 Intro 2nd paragraph 14.1.2.2 Shock and Awe vs. terrorism 14.1.2.3 Criticism 14.1.2.3.1 Indiscriminate civilian deaths 14.2 POV dispute tag (continued) 15 Criticism section 15.1 Survey 16 More mainstream sources 17 the references that you site do not support the inclusions 18 These issues have been addressed and they are POV 19 re-introduced the criticism section 20 Popular Culture 21 Starcare: POV issues and lies 22 Survey response solicitation 23 Starcare: look at the criticism section that I wrote 24 Opposing views to keep 24.1 Objections to your views 24.2 Well stated Scribner 25 Observations from a Passing Observer 26 what is the policy on these "popular culture" sections? 27 Starcare, cite all claims 27.1 Update 28 Mediation request 29 Revert confusion 30 Video 31 problems with the new inclusion...again. 32 counter arguments sadly lacking 33 Request for mediation 34 Scribner's barnstar 35 Dictionary definitions 36 What Wikipedia is not 36.1 Verifiability 36.2 Recent tags 37 Sandbox created for those unhappy with protected state 38 this article is dominated by a clear left wing bias 39 WP:RS, the use of primary sources, Ullman, and omission of Iraq's use of human shields 40 Commentary on the Current Version 41 WP:V verifiability problems 42 Shock and awe/sandbox 42.1 Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure 42.2 Comparison to terrorism 43 Dictionary definitions aren't OR 44 News Reporters 45 Inclusion 46 The military operation was not named "shock and awe"

[edit] "Shock and awe" trademarked?

Sony, and a few other companies have applied for a trade mark on the term "shock and awe"

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5618653.htm

If approved, will this affect the inclusion of this term in the wi kipedia? user: black bag

this page is suffering from a classic wikipedia sin. check the first sentence: ""Shock and Awe" is the popular phrase used to describe the strategic doctrine being threatened by the United States in its invasion of Iraq." This is an encyclopaedia. This article will be read in a year's time, and hopefully in a hundred years' time, when all this is ancient history. This article needs to be a lot less specific to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and when it discusses that it shouldn't do so in such a time-sensitive way. --AW

agree. should add some stuff; reference to Shekinah, and maybe the Yiddish meshugganah provide a cognitive assonance that turns out quite enlightening on this topic.

Patients grasshopper. The current war is our main source of info on how this strategy is being applied. I'm sure the United States will give us other opportunities to add more content to this topic in the future. --mav

Regardless of your speculation on future events involving the US, the term originated from a concept developed at the National Defense University in 1996 an was later popularized by news media in 2003 to describe US plans for war in Iraq. This article should cover the concept of "shock and awe" and then refer to the popularization of the term in the context of the 2003 war in Iraq. Imagine if an article existed for "shock and awe" pre-2003. Then, consider the recent popularization of the term as an update to an already pre-existing article. --unregistered user

---

This page fails to discuss the possible legal implications of this policy in that it may possibly encourage or permit actions in violation of the law of war. --Daniel C. Boyer

Don't worry, the US will win and the Bush Administration will make sure retroactively that whatever they did was perfectly legal. --mav

Rhetorical question for mav: Why would one make legal after the fact that which was legal before the fact? -º¡º

Question for º¡º: How is 'violating the law of war' legal? Or do you refer to the U.S. not adhering to the Geneva conventions any more?

[edit] Comparisons with Blitzkrieg

How does this differ from blitzkrieg? -- Zoe

Blitzkrieg = other side. Bad. Shock and awe = our side. Good. (And I ain't joking, Zoe. That's the entire extent of the difference, so far as I can tell. In a little while I'll read the article again and see if I can find any other distinction, but don't hold your breath.) Tannin

Blitzkrieg does not have the negative connotations you speak of - at least not for me. Shock and awe does look to be different in that the focus is on rendering the leadership of a foe ineffective through a variety of means whereas blitzkrieg is more or less moving your troops into enemy areas so fast that you overwhelm them in a physical sense. Shock and awe also wants to overwhelm them in a mental sense. Also, unlike a blitz there is great care not to destroy civilian targets. So the two concepts are similar but not the same. --mav

That's a very, very fine line to try to draw. The leadership disctinction doesn't really apply, as that was an aim of blitkrieg too (or, for that mattter, of Napoleonic tactics - the terms change but the tactic is almost as old as war itself). The "care not to destroy civilian targets" is just splitting hairs. Care for non-combatants is also as old as war itself. Tannin

Blitzkrieg is based on a specific set of _ground_ based tactical rules, namely the concentration of all available mobile units at a single point, breaking though the front line with this local superiority, and then racing to the rear in order to cut off the front lines. Air support in blitzkrieg is used primarily as mobile artillery, not strategically. This is why the Luftwaffe had no strategic bombers, they didn't consider it worthwhile.

Shack and Awe is based on a different principle, bombing the command and control centers, communications and other targets at "strategic distances" - hundreds of kilometers from the front lines - in order to stop the flow of information. It attempts to do in a single bombing raid what the motion of a blitzkrieg does, cut off the front lie troops from comminications with the rear.

So the aims are certainly similar, as they always have been, but the methods are distinct. One strategy targets command and control from the air at long distances, the other other front line troops at short distances on the ground. This is not a fine line to draw! The only similarity is "win war", but a definition that loose is a tautology, and therefor useless. Sorry Tannin, your comment is simply wrong. -- User:Maury Markowitz

This is a simple question. Inducing a state of "Shock and Awe" in the enemy is a *goal*. This goal can be approached through several methods, and blitzkrieg warfare is only *one* such method. Perhaps you could say "blitzkrieg" is to "shock and awe" as "advertising" is to "consumer behavior". -º¡º

Sounds reasonable to me. There is also the matter usage of the two - i.e., the current fad for saying "shock & awe" because it would not be PC to say "blitkrieg". cf terms like "colatieral damage" (sp!). We (all nations) are always making up new words to make things sound nicer. Tannin

Blitzkrieg is a tactic used throughout a campaign for winning a specific battle. Shock and awe is an overall military campaign strategy. Further, as someone said, Blitzkrieg aims to physically overpower the enemy, and Shock and Awe aims to overpower them psychologically. Blitzkrieg is not a type of shock and awe, unless you're charging through enemy lines to kill the guys with the radios.

To make the comparison to any who play RTS games, Blitzkrieg would be killing the enemy's front units and then having your infantry charge at their ranged or special units, and Shock and Awe would consist of trash talking your opponents, hoping to demoralize them and make them give up after losing a specific battle, even though they still had a chance to come back.

- drifus3@hotmail.com

"Shock and awe" has been misinterpreted as a massive and spectacular wave of destruction. An optimum shock and awe campaign would hit as few targets as possible to achieve the desired phsycholigical effect. Blitzkrieg, on the other hand, is defined as a massive campaign. --unregistered user

This is certainly not true, in fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg was accepted in Germany specfically because it allowed their numerically smaller forces take on the much larger French/British and Soviet forces, and do so as quickly as possible. Hitler wanted the war to consist basically of two quick battles. Contratry to claims here, attacking the leadership was NOT part of the plan, nor was any sort of "regrime change". They wanted to win the war, period. -- User:Maury Markowitz

Removed text:

This is not substantially different that the concept of Blitzkrieg.

Please read the above thread. In short Blitzkrieg is one way to accomplish "Shock and Awe." --mav

Then why doesnt this article note the similiarty? The Germans in WWII said they were agaisnt causing civilian casulaties. The Germans in WWII were very interested in taking out the enemy leadership. Shock and Awe is a PC way of hiding the influence of the German military on modern American military doctrine. Much of our military is directly patterned after German WWII doctrine. The US attack on Iraq is following the doctrine of blitzkrieg, that is bypassing enemy fortifications and leaving them for follow-up troops. Blitzkrieg is not merely one way to accomplish Shock and Awe, Shock and Awe is blitzkrieg.

• Blitzkrieg=Rapid Dominance

Dietary Fiber

Then explain the the difference and similarities in the article. But we cannot, per our NPOV policy, just state the "It is so that Shock and Awe and Blitzkrieg are the same thing." Also the statement that Blitzkrieg has some type of negative connotation is bizarre ; that military concept has been doctrine for half a century and at least in the US the term does not carry a lot of baggage. But it is still incorrect to say that Shock and awe and Blitzkrieg are the same thing. --mav

Changed this to hopefully NPOV "Some people believe that the doctrine "Rapid Dominance" is a technologically updated version of Blitzkrieg."

I have now refactored this article, to try to place the three major threads under their own subheadings.

2nd-order refactoring of historical comparisons section now done: can someone please copyedit this article?

The page has improved a lot! The Blitzkrieg comparison is obviously required, but it needs care. Consider the following quote from the current Blitzkrieg entry:

Although trumpeted as a truly modern style of war, Blitzkrieg's theoretical basis was almost as old as war itself. Similar strategies were employed by Alexander the Great in classical times; Napoleon was a master of them; and they were used on a smaller scale by both sides in the closing stages of World War I.

Obviously that isn't something that should drop straight into the S&A entry, but a proper historical perspective (as hinted at by the above) is required. Tannin

PS: By the way, 213, why don't you make yourself a handle? It takes 30 seconds, it's free, and you don't have to use your real name if you don't want to. I can see that you are obviously cut out to be a Wikiholic. You might as well relax and accept it ;) Tannin

[edit] Comparisons with WW2 Japan

I once wathced a documentary that suggested that, contrary to popular history, the Japanese government knew they were losing the war and were in fact considering, maybe even already negotiating, peace when American detonated their nuclear weapons over Hiroshima and Nagosaki. Anyone know where we might find furhter information no this matteri? -- Axon

Ive heard this as well. Dietary Fiber

Richard B Frank's Downfall: the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire, Random, 1999, ISBN 067941424 is a towering work on this question, Axon, Detailed, comprehensive, balanced, meticulously researched.

Frank shows that the answer to your question is undoubtedly "yes", and that there were a number of factors at work in the Japanese surrender. The bombs were significant, but so were the previous fire raids, the strangulation of Japanese industry by the destruction of the merchant marine (aircraft and submarines), the conquest of Manchuria & Korea by the Red Army, and so on.

Would the Japanese have surendered without the nukes? Undoubtedly. Would they have surrendered when they did without the nukes? Quote probably not. Would the surrender (without the nukes) still have been reasonably prompt? Maybe. Would the Japanese have been able to hold out much longer? In the conquered territories, no: the Soviets in particular were capable of crushing anything and everything they met. (We Westerners tend to think that we won the war against Hitler and the Soviets helped out too; actually the Red Army took on 4/5ths of the German land forces and still got to Berlin first.) In the home islands, it was a different matter: the Japanese preperations to meet invasion were truly formidable. Franks demonstrates—conclusively to my mind—that the nukes saved more lives than they took, and even more conclusively that on the information available to him at the time, Truman made the right decision.

In summary, there are two simplistic positions: (a) that America dropped the nukes and that made the Japanese surrender, (b) that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and the nukes were simply gratuitous murder: neither is justifiable by the facts, and the true answer is much more complex than either. Tannin

---

This is far fewer than the thousands of deaths that critics of this strategy claimed would occur.

Nitpick, but wasn't the use of the "shock and awe" strategy announced quite late in the debate over war on Iraq? I know that people have predicted deaths in the thousands as a result of the Iraq war, but I wasn't aware of any specific predictions regarding the deaths due to the "shock and awe" strategy. Most criticisms of shock and awe have centered around it being untried, or questioning whether it will be as effective as its supporters claim. Martin

It is strange to predict "thousands of deaths" when one of the specific goals of Shock and Awe is to produce fewer casualites then alternative approaches. Perhaps the time is coming to be bold. -º¡º

---

Making several changes:

Removed: In theory the action can be so swift as to compel the enemy forces to surrender en-mass.

This may be true, but isn't the main goal of Rapid Dominance and doesn't belong in the first paragraph. The goal isn't always to force a surrender, and surrender isn't compelled purely through speed.

Removed: It was first applied as the basis of a war doctrine by the United States in its 2003 invasion of Iraq. Added: There are indications that it was first applied systemically as a war doctrine by the United States in its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

You do not know this, and if you did you wouldn't be allowed to tell us. All war is deception, and even if The President and the Secretary of Defense stood in front of a television camera and said this was our doctrine, that could merely be a deception. Only after the war is over will we be able to say whether or not this was the overriding doctrine of the war.

As of the fifth day of the war the outcome of the war remained uncertain, but it appeared that the doctrine had failed in its objective of causing a rapid collapse of the Iraqi military and avoiding the need for attritional warfare.

Who said the "objective of the doctrine" was to cause a collapse of the military?

(other changes not commented) -º¡º

---

Should the line about leaving civilian infrastructure be deleted, or at least edited, now that missiles are being targetted at (amongst others) the TV stations and telephone exchanges?

The problem here is that the 'civilian' structures targeted could, arguably, be used for military purposes. Perhaps a link to an article about the blurring of civilians and combatants might be useful. - User:Erzengel - 3 Apr 2003 1330 UTC

---

• Blitzkrieg is based on the idea of massing the entirety of an army's mobile forces at a single point in front of the enemy, breaking through due to the local superiority, and then running to the rear areas to cut off the front lines. Executed properly, a blitzkrieg will happen so fast that the enemy will have little idea what is going on. Attempts to set up a coherent defense or counterattack are difficult to organize, by the time one is ready the battle is already behind you.

• Rapid Dominance, on the other hand, is based on a direct and furious attack on the command headquarters, both at the armed forces central commands, as well as the unit headquarters closer to the front. The aim is to cut off the troops from information and command, as opposed to supplies.

• • The flaw with the above excerpt is that blitzkrieg's primary goal is NOT to cut off supplies (as indicated in paragraph #2) but rather the primary goal is to attack command headquarters and communications. This article seems to argue that rapid dominance may appear similar to blitzkrieg, but is fundamentally different; however, such a notion is incorrect.

• Rapid Dominance is the modern American term for Blitzkrieg. Pizza Puzzle

---

There is no mention of attacks on civilian populations or infrastructures in the article. It seems to me that the article discusses the concept in a very roundabout way to avoid mentioning this point. -- Miguel

[edit] Psychological Effects

I think the article should mention that in the case of shock and awe as a psychological effect, it is different from blitzkreig. In blitzkreig, only the enemy is witness to the campaign. In shock and awe, viewers from around the world watched on live TV, and are thus from their respective vantage points subject to psychological effects. I, for one, was both "shocked" and "awed" and I'm of the opinion that the psychological effects were additionally directed at American citizens and other countries, and not just Iraqis.

As a sidenote, I also remember watching CNN at the time which was showing the bombing campaign and at the same time in the ticker at the bottom displaying Iraqi propaganda such as (and I'm paraphrasing) "Saddam Hussein believes in humanity and just law" and "Iraq wishes for peace" which made for a very dissociating juxtaposition. --Ben 20:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with Terrorism

Comparing shock and awe with terror doesnt belong in a NPOV article and certainately not in the first sentence. They are entirel differennt concepts. Shock and Awe is a legitmate military tactic specifically designed to avoid civillian casualties while terrorism is based on civillian casualites. Whatever terror that comes from schock and awe only affects brutal military and governemnt offishals.--Gary123 19:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparing shock and awe with terror doesnt belong in a NPOV article and certainately not in the first sentence. They are entirel differennt concepts. Shock and Awe is a legitmate military tactic specifically designed to avoid civillian casualties while terrorism is based on civillian casualites. Whatever terror that comes from schock and awe only affects brutal military and governemnt offishals.---Robert Chen 21:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Shock and awe" is merely a new, would-be awesome name for earlier US methods. I see no evidence (other than Pentagon PR reassurances) that it is specifically designed to avoid civilian casualties; if that is indeed the design, "Shock and awe" is a failure. Yes, it's state terrorism: Curtis LeMay would have approved (cf the firebombing of Tokyo).

Of course, you can disagree. Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps it isn't state terrorism. But to prohibit even a comparison with terrorism looks to me like a bizarre extreme of self-censorship. -- Hoary 02:51, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Obviously you missed what those guys were saying. Shock and awe is clearly a humanitarian policy designed to promote human rights. In the future it will be carried out by NGO's. Xproudfoot 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you seem to have lagged a little bit behind in that response.. Like a year? :) There is a fresh discussion down the page.. Take care --Xasf 08:22, 01 August 2006 (GMT+3)

[edit] Origin of term: "Shock and Awe"

I have read, but have been unable to confirm, that the term "shock and awe" was used in and/or originated in the English version of Signal Magazine, the Nazi party photomag with "embedded" reporters, published in sixteen languages, throughout occupied Europe. I have a reprinted compilation of some of Signal's worst hits, but have been unable to locate the term therein. It's also possible that there was confusion in this case between the Nazis' Signal magazine, and SIGNAL magazine, the AFCEA's current publication. Can anyone help confirm or debunk this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.12.18 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Additional connection to be made in popular culture section.

Perhaps comedian Bill Hicks’ album Shock and Awe, recorded in 1992 may belong in the popular culture section of this article? As vehemently anti-war as he was, it certainly fits, but I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertey (talk • contribs)

[edit] Larnue the dormouse; synonyms of "terror"

Larnue the dormouse has been confirmed by a CheckUserUser as a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. However, after reviewing the banned user's modus operandi, I stand by my recent edits, which do point out that "shock" and "awe" are both dictionary synonyms for "terror."

I fully understand that was probably Zephram/Larnue's intended response, but it is a fact, and I have repeatedly verified it through the years, and my experience researching depleted uranium convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is notable, for the reasons stated in my edit of the intro and the Criticism section. --James S. 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of term "casualties"

This struck me when I couldn't find anything better than the euphemism Collateral damage to link from "indiscriminate civilian casualties" (in common with terrorism):

casualty ... etymology: Middle English casuelte, from Old French, from Medieval Latin cāsuālitās, chance, accident, from Latin cāsuālis, fortuitous. See casual.

How close is that to the root of Zephram's problem? --James S. 05:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we be blanking or marking banned user sockpuppetry?

As someone who was "illicited" to edits here by a sockpuppet of the banned user Zephram Stark, I wonder what my responsbilities are. It is hard to determine the motivations of the offender when his edits are being reverted/blanked. Too hard. If anyone expects me to make an honest judgement about whether the banned user's behavior was so out of line that I should be retracting, eliding, moving to talk, contracting, softening, or otherwise modifying my edits here, I'm going to need the facts in front of me. As it stands, I know this talk page doesn't represent the whole story.

This wouldn't be that hard if I could figure out whether there is any difference other than connotation between unconventional warfare and military doctrine, which it seems there isn't: one is "accepted" by one set of authorities, and the other is accepted by a different but substantially overlapping set of authorities. That's the very essence of a point-of-view difference.

I must say, I was angry at Zephram for this ruse, but now I'm not so sure I have any disagreement with his motivation -- only his methods. --James S. 06:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and Awe needs to be changed to "Rapid Dominance"

...and "shock and Awe" should redirect to "rapid dominance." "Shock and awe" is simply a discriptor for the doctrine.ER MD 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Read this [1] prior to any friction with the move. The title is "Shock and Awe", but the principle is rapid dominance. therefore, shock and awe belongs under rapid dominance as it is now written. "shock and awe" potentially may be placed in its own article as the name of the operation at the start of the Iraqi war. But as it is currently written here, it is more an aspect or explantion of the rapid dominance philosophy. ER MD 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You should not attempt to "move" articles by copying-and-pasting: it makes the edit history hard to follow. I have rolled both back to the way they were before; please redo your subsequent edits here. If you wish to have the article moved, file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Haeleth Talk 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your logic for the revert? Shock and Awe is a subset of Rapid dominance. Do you disagree? ER MD 00:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Personally, I would like to hear some logic as to the revert. If you think about for more than a few seconds, then you will understand it makes sense. Arguments that end in "follow wiki policy" yet do not have any substance to the underlying issue are suspect. In fact, Rapid dominance was the original until somebody changes it to shock and awe.ER MD 00:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] youtube

the inclusion here is more of a critique on the iraq war and not on the military operation. Its a very thin video and it is political. The article has been cleaned of the policitical stuff and this is one more political insertion. If the video was on the meaning of shock and awe or on the initial operation, then it would be more valid, but its on the regular crap like oil, american imperialism etc. I'll add a political component to see if you agree with the insertion... ER MD 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, have you seen the entire clip? Yes, the first half is just as you describr, but its due to the second half that i included it. --Striver 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute tag

When I looked at this article's edit history, it looked like a slow-moving edit war. But when I looked at the participants, I saw that User:ER MD had been editing this article sometimes many time per day, and at least once a week for several months. Going back before his first edit, I saw that he had systematically removed everything the article had to say against the subject, leaving it as glowing praise. Completely non-neutral and one-sided!

So, I added this tag:

I would like ER MD to review WP:NPOV, ASAP please. Starcare 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow... another really insightful claim... I actually removed all the POV crap that was in the article. So what POV are you reading now? (I inserted the line on islamic fascism to make the point that the link to youtube is inappropriate--that one line can be remove). NOW, it deals now only with the term of shock and awe, and the military operation named shock and awe with an explanation about the parent concept--rapid dominance. I removed ciriticism on the Iraq war (not the article to do it in) and claims that the US is acting like a terrorist nation (fringe ideas are not acceptable NPOV). As opposed to simply crying that it is one sided--why don't you argue about current POV or aspects that you think should be included. Most of the Edits that I did were reverts from the vadalism by Ncrmp2026 or whatever his name was. In addition, I ACTUALLY READ THE 'SHOCK AND AWE' MANUSCRIPT!!! why don't you read the manuscript before you start throwing out baseless claims. I'm going to remove the tag---why don't you familiarize yourself with the subject before you start throwing out accusations. ER MD 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you have removed all of the statements opposed to Shock and Awe from the article, including several statements sourced from reference material. That is a huge no-no. The NPOV policy requires that both points of view be represented when there is a controversy. You have just taken everything from one side out. And you might have been reacting to Nrcprm2026, but you can't blame him because even the edit just before Nrcpmr2026's first edit also has a bunch of stuff critical of the subject. You are not supposed to do that -- it is the "neutral" point of view, not "pro-shock and awe" point of view which we are supposed to be writing in. -209.11.184.1 04:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Name one line that is written in the "pro-shock and awe" viewpoint. Thank you. ER MD 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Points prior to Nrcprm2026: the article starts with shock and awe and the body then delves into rapid dominance. Shock and awe is a subset (or the method) to acheive the greater goal of rapid dominance--I recommend you read the manuscript. Last paragraph in the section is re-written which describes all of the different points of shock and awe (again read the manuscript). Links on the criticism did not state that which it claimed. Shock and awe verus terrorism--not one reference (fringe concept as well). Iraq war has a "contradictory post-war assessments" as the the effects of the campaign.

So again, why don't you point out a POV sentence. ER MD 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire intro, for starters, which presents nothing of the original balance in either of the above versions of the article, and then the next two or three sections. Just because you write "Ullman and Wade think Shock and Awe is the greatest thing since sliced bread" doesn't absolve the fact that you took out all the detracting statments, including their sources. And you took out a lot, including these sections:

[edit] Removed sections

[edit] From 24 January version

[edit] Shock and Awe vs. Terrorism

At face value, the doctrine of shock and awe shares much in common with the tenets of terrorism, with both intending to affect political outcomes through non-traditional uses of military power. American supporters of Shock and Awe claim that unlike terrorism, Shock and Awe does not deliberately target civilians, although civilians could be killed. Critics however, point to the difficulty in reducing civilian casualties while bombing locations with high civilian population density.

Furthermore, many have argued that the label of terrorism does not hinge on civilian casualities, as terror can be elicited through many other means as well. One historical example is the terrorist group, the Weather Underground Organization of the United States, which conducted an extensive domestic bombing campaign for many years against government and corporate property without killing a single person, through the use of extensive prior warnings and strategically flamboyant targets. Such attacks are clearly intended to elicit terror, in that case among the state and corporate apparatus itself, as well as to build a domestic insurgency, as stated in the claims of responsibility issued by the WUO, and so clearly fall under the realm of terrorism.

Excluding any arbitrary framework of moral supremacy, it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from terrorism, as both tactics' primary goal is to elicit terror, shock and awe.

[edit] Criticism

Shock and Awe met significant criticism from both military and civilian sectors. United States theorists had criticized its assumptions of total information awareness, unmatched technology, and assumptions of symmetric warfare.

In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment.^[2] Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,^[3] and termed such plans as savagery.^[4] The United States armed forces had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties.^[5]

Shock and Awe–style warfare also seems to be less effective against an extended insurgency than against an enemy's military.

[edit] From 16 April version

[edit] Intro 2nd paragraph

However, "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. To that extent, or from the perspective of the insurgent forces fighting conventional forces in military theatres such as the Middle East who frequently use terrorist doctrines or methods, or both, shock and awe is difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. Mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents (p<.0000001). [6]

[edit] Shock and Awe vs. terrorism

At face value, the doctrine of shock and awe shares much in common with the tenets of terrorism, with both intending to affect political outcomes through non-traditional uses of military power. American supporters of Shock and Awe claim that unlike terrorism, Shock and Awe does not deliberately target civilians, although civilians could be killed. Critics however, point to the difficulty in reducing civilian casualties while bombing locations with high civilian population density.

Furthermore, many have argued that the label of terrorism does not hinge on civilian casualities, as terror can be elicited through many other means as well. One historical example is the terrorist group, the Weather Underground Organization of the United States, which conducted an extensive domestic bombing campaign for many years against government and corporate property without killing a single person, through the use of extensive prior warnings and strategically flamboyant targets. Such attacks are clearly intended to elicit terror, in that case among the state and corporate apparatus itself, as well as to build a domestic insurgency, as stated in the claims of responsibility issued by the WUO, and so clearly fall under the realm of terrorism.

Excluding considerations of moral supremacy, it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from terrorism, as both tactics' primary goal is to elicit terror, shock and awe. The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror."

[edit] Criticism

Shock and Awe met significant criticism from both military and civilian sectors. United States theorists had criticized its assumptions of total information awareness, unmatched technology, and assumptions of symmetric warfare.

In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment.^[7] Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,^[8] and termed such plans as savagery.^[9] The United States armed forces had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties.^[10]

Shock and Awe–style warfare also seems to be less effective against an extended insurgency than against an enemy's military.

Some authors have claimed that the use of uranium weaponry during blitz-like attacks such as shock and awe and the military blitz of the February, 1991 Gulf War has contaminated the genome of exposed troops and civilians, and their families, and has contaminated air over the European continent with brief concentrations of uranium compounds. For example, uranyl compound poisoning has apparently led to measurable effects such as Gulf War syndrome. Please see also discussion of Busby, et al. (2006) referenced below. Please note that the work of Busby, et al. (2006) has been considered controversial by some authorities. Sadly, the congenital malformation statistics required to extrapolate the expected damage to exposed military and civilian genomes have not been forthcoming, and the extent of actual damage the detected genetic disturbance is at present highly uncertain. Certainly, the combustion of large (on the order of thousands of tons) quantities of uranium in open air is unprecedented, and coincident with modern forms of warfare including shock and awe. The long term consequences of such combustion are at present unknown.

[edit] Indiscriminate civilian deaths

In Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, anti-war author Noam Chomsky writes:

The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October 2004 elicited enough comment in England that the government had to issue an embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes it as the "controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most probable estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as accurate to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died. Though the report was released at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign, it appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever publicly questioned about it. [11]

Other sources support this estimate of large numbers of civilian deaths, often — and even commonly — referred to by the euphemisms "causalties" or "collateral damage." [12]

One of the authors of the Lancet study in question has stated in a letter to the U.K. Independent newspaper, “Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000.” [13]

---

[edit] POV dispute tag (continued)

So, do you see the problem? It's just completely against the NPOV policy to remove that stuff (including the sources!) without replacing it with something else having the same point of view. You didn't even discuss the problems on this talk page. Your first addition to this talk page, after all that editing, was the "Shock and Awe needs to be changed to 'Rapid Dominance'" section above.

Do you agree that these sections, or a paraphrase of them, need to go back in? 209.11.184.1 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go line by line arguing which lines should be included. As an example, start with this:

Some authors have claimed that the use of uranium weaponry during blitz-like attacks such as shock and awe and the military blitz of the February, 1991 Gulf War has contaminated the genome of exposed troops and civilians, and their families, and has contaminated air over the European continent with brief concentrations of uranium compounds. For example, uranyl compound poisoning has apparently led to measurable effects such as Gulf War syndrome. Please see also discussion of Busby, et al. (2006) referenced below. Please note that the work of Busby, et al. (2006) has been considered controversial by some authorities. Sadly, the congenital malformation statistics required to extrapolate the expected damage to exposed military and civilian genomes have not been forthcoming, and the extent of actual damage the detected genetic disturbance is at present highly uncertain. Certainly, the combustion of large (on the order of thousands of tons) quantities of uranium in open air is unprecedented, and coincident with modern forms of warfare including shock and awe. The long term consequences of such combustion are at present unknown.

questions: 1) why is the 91 gulf war included in the 2003 shock and awe campaign? 2) Was there even a reference to depleted uranium used in shock and awe? 3)what does congenital malformations have to do with shock and awe? Shouldn't that be in its own article?

Another section: However, "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. To that extent, or from the perspective of the insurgent forces fighting conventional forces in military theatres such as the Middle East who frequently use terrorist doctrines or methods, or both, shock and awe is difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. Mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents (p<.0000001). [6]

More questions: 4)Who wrote that shock and awe was similar to terrorism? 5) What is the significance of coalition forces killing insurgents at a p value of less than 0.0000001? 6) "from the perspective of insurgent forces" 7) what does that mean? 8) Are the insurgents criticizing shock and awe saying it was unfair?

9)How come there are ZERO references in "Shock and Awe vs. terrorism"? 10) Who is advocating that the shock and awe campaign was terrorism? Give some specific names of who is describing it that way without weasel words.

More retarded lines to which you defend: "Shock and Awe–style warfare also seems to be less effective against an extended insurgency than against an enemy's military" 11) who said that shock and awe was directed against the insurgency? Lets site some names stating that claim...

12) How come the references to guernica, aerial bombardment state different things in the links that what is said in the article? Can you say distortion?

13) Is Noam Chompsky's criticism against shock and awe, or is it against the Iraq war?

14) Are lines like this not POV: "referred to by the euphemisms "causalties" or "collateral damage."?

As for your question: "Do you agree that these sections" and I say no for the above reasons.

Alrighty, you have 14 questions to answer. ER MD 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine:

1. Both involved military blitzes using "overwhelming decisive force," "dominant battlefield awareness," "dominant maneuvers," and "spectacular displays of power", meeting the definition in the intro.

2. It was used in '91; see above.

3. See gulf war syndrome#depleted uranium.

4. Look them up in any dictionary or thesarus -- they are clearly listed as synonyms.

5. The significance value is exactly as you stated it -- only one chance in ten million that insurgents have killed more people than coalition forces.

6-7. The insurgents can not discern "shock and awe" directed against them from terrorism?

8. Who knows, that isn't in the text you deleted.

9. Usually dictionary definition citations aren't needed, but you are free to add them.

10. Nobody is "advocating" anything, but again, the statments are supported by definition.

11. There is no statement saying that shock and awe was directed against the insurgency.

12. I don't understand this question.

13. As the former is part of the latter, then if it is against one it's against the other.

14. Do you claim that "causalties" and "collateral damage" are not euphimsisms? 209.11.184.1 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are sadly lacking. #1: those definitions have been attributed to multple campaigns. Actually the authors of the doctrince state that "shock and awe" was not even shock and awe. (Read the article). #2: the doctrine was written after gulf war one. #3: where is the evidence that DU was used in the shock and awe campaign. The evidence for DU causing gulf war syndrome is weak. #4 because they are listed as synonyms does not mean it get included--and its a far stretch. You have severe POV issues. Bring up an Arbcom if you think you are right. #5 p-value makes no sense in this context. Reasearch is not being done--p-values are good when you want to know if the experiment was repeated again that you would get similar results. #6-10 You did not adequately respond to the questons. #11. My point exactly #12 The article referenced Guernica: Where is the reference to it? ...or did some wikipedian with an axe to grind think that this was nicety to add? #13 You are incorrect since there is a difference. #14 They may very well be euphemisms, but it is common knowledge and its inclusion is a POV attempt to distort the issue. ED MD 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is one point that you have adequately argued for. Again this is an encylcopedia, and not your soapbox. ED MD 16:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one person has disagreed, and their arguments claiming POV are unsubstantiated (read above). Removing POV tag. The "dispute can continue here if need be. ED MD 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Mass media is not "altnet" and "world socialist web site". These are essnetially blogs and they are fringe. In addition, some were written before the shock and awe campaign occured so there is no relevence. Again the line: "Shock and Awe–style warfare seems to be less effective against an extended insurgency than against an enemy's military" appears. Shock and awe was not directed against the insurgency. Shock and awe compared to terrorism is original research. Finally, Noam's criticism is of the Iraq war and not of the specific shock and awe campaign. 100,000 people did not die in the few days of shock and awe. Its criticsm here is not appropriate. All this stuff needs to be removed. Obviously some enjoy trying to make political points. ED MD 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those sources are representative of the kinds of critiques Shock and Awe has garnered. They are all verifiable and properly cited. Just because you disagree with their political outlook doesn't mean that their views are not important for a balanced article. Just the opposite is true.

Your edit comment that the dictionary was not a valid source to cite is particularly silly. You yourself asked for the source that the terms were synonyms for terror. Starcare 07:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is original research to state that since one of the twenty definitions of shock and one of the twenty definitions of awe therefore make it synonyms of terror. Your statements are ridiculous. Also the world socialist webpage is a blog, and is fringe ideas. Finally, for the tenth time, shock and awe was not directed at the insurgency. Why don't you find ONE reference that shock and awe was used to fight the insurgency!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheesh! ED MD 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Example of deleted entry: "Critics point out that the words "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. Shock and awe is in many ways difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths." This is pure POV. If you think that this belongs here, bring it up with an administrator. Not only is it oringial research, its completely bogus. ED MD 08:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted again because the statements are sourced, and represent other sources well. You can not delete citations to dictionary and thesarus and then claim that the fact the terms are synonyms are unsourced. If you disagree, you probably don't want to go to an administrator with a content dispute. You seem to be the only person removing this material. Moreover, you replaced a photograph of smoke from oil fires which were intentionally set to provide cover before the bombing began. Why don't you create a Wikipedia:Request for comment on the article if you are so sure that there should be no criticism section? Starcare 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have included another source with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki comparison. Ulmann and Wade make the same statement. [14] Starcare 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for some time now and it looks more like an edit war with each passing day. Please avoid repeated reverts to the main article before a consensus is reached here on the talk page, call in a vote to resolve the dispute if necessary.

That being said, I find it unsettling that a whole criticism section is missing from the page. A criticism section with "citation needed" tags and may be a "factual accuracy dispute" tag would be far better than none at all. Take care --Xasf 08:47, 27 July 2006 (GMT+3)

[edit] Survey

ED MD (formerly ER MD) is the only one who has been deleting the "Criticism" section, which he has been doing repeatedly while undoing other editors' work over the past half year. The situation has devolved into a one-sided edit war, with some editors such as myself adjusting text and including additional references to address ED MD's concerns, and ED MD reverting wholesale, sometimes without any discussion on this talk page. Should this article include a "Criticism" section with other points of view than the military strategists he has cited, and include the summary information in the intro?

For reference:

• most recent version without Criticism, from ED MD,
• most recent version with Criticism, from Starcare and other editors,
• new version with Criticism from ED MD created after survey opened

--Starcare 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, include Criticism section and summary in intro

1. Starcare as survey author 06:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Xasf Strongly agree.The existence of a criticism section is a must, and enough factual references exist to justify one as it is. Further details can be refined and concerns can be addressed in less destructive ways as I mentioned above. Take care.. 10:18, 27 July 2006 (GMT+3)
3. Xproudfoot Agree. Post criticism and sources. Criticism should be in introduction although not in the first 1-3 sentences, which should be reserved for general description. If sources are disputed, users should be allowed to post 'rebuttal to criticism' with alternate sources. This is obvious. Whether one user or three disagrees with a source is irrelevant: they exist and a number of people are well aware of criticism of the shock and awe tactic. It is not even an unusual point of view, so it merits representation. Let both sides post their information, and sources, and let readers decide which sources to trust. As long as the source says what the writer claims it says, and it relates to shock and awe, I strongly feel it must stay up. 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   You make complete sense and I agree. However, this is the text that Stiver is attempting to place: "In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment [13]. Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,[14] and termed such plans as savagery.[1][2] The United States armed forces had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties [15]." Here is my response to the issue: 1)the term "mass media" is used, but the references are are distorted. The Guardian reference [17] does not use either phrase of "indiscriminate," "doomsday," or terror aerial bombardment. Hence the reference is a complete lie. 2)the guernica reference is correct, but the criticism is coming from the alternet.org. Far from mainstrem "mass media" as the paragraph claims. This page engages in severe distortions of fact such as: "The Pentagon dubbed its cold-blooded attack plan "Shock and Awe," a bizarre conjunction of trauma and admiration" , "But have missiles also been preset to obliterate the al-Qadiriya Shrine, the Tomb of Imam al-A'dham and the Mosque of Sheik Abdul Qadir al-Ghailani?", "Similarly, the destruction of Baghdad seems designed to underscore Bush's belligerent warning to the rest of the world: "You're either with us or you're against us." , "Washington's new National Security Strategy describes an America dominating the world militarily, politically and economically."

   3)the term savagery is supported by a link from the World Socialist Webpage.[18] this is again, not "mass media" and completely fringe. Read any other article on the site. Wikipedia has a response to this type of reference: "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities, although editors should proceed with caution. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources. " In conclusion, Starcare attempts to claim "mass media" using three extremist sites. The criticism expressed whould be from mainstream sources. They exist and they can be referenced. But webblogs like the world socialist webpage is completely inappropriate, especially when Starcare claims that it is a "mass media" outlet. ED MD 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Publicola The most recently commented version seems like a good compromise after all this article has been through recently. I think maybe replace that last "Counterpunch" source with a mainstream report about infrastructure, and its good enough. (Or even better if you are an eventualist :) Scribner is plainly wrong about the lack of sources in the stuff he commented, and adding the complaint tag after commenting, wtf? 05:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Maximilli Strongly agree.

   I think we should include the Criticism section. However, I think that we should take care not to give any general criticism of the Iraq war itself. FYI, I am personally not a supporter of the war, but that is irrelevant. I would, however, not limit criticism of shock and awe as it is related to the Iraq war to simply the three day campaign in the beginning. I think a more broad term would be better applied to this situation; for example, '"shock and awe" and elements of the doctrine as they are related to the Iraq war'. One last thing: I agree with Xproudfoot as he writes below. User:ED MD is behaving as if this is a personal issue to him. I have gotten the feeling a couple of times now that he is trying to stack the argument against this side of the debate, and not only don't I like it, but it is poor debate skill. Now, this may just be something that I've imagined, so don't decide yourself on my post alone or anything. At any rate, I have noticed that User:Starcare has kept a much cooler head than ED MD. I'm not saying that this necessarily has anything to do with the argument, I'm just saying this to show what I've noticed in the hopes of cooling both sides down to a more objective level.

   Additionally, I think that the object of this debate should stop being tearing the other guy's (or girl's, whatever) side down, but work together on each individual point until it's re-written as a compromise between the two parties. Obviously there is support for a criticism section across the board, but in order to actually come up with some text, we've got to work together to write this instead of seeing it as a black and white, good guy bad guy situation.

   So, I say everyone should first of all, cool down. The best and most productive debate, whether in Wikipedia or in a school gym or in a presidential debate, is one that simply pits one group of facts against another until one side comes out with a stronger position. There shouldn't be any feeling. Feeling clouds one's judgement. Second of all, this debate has got to turn toward compromise and cooperation instead of victory of one side over the other. This sounds easier than it is, I know, and most of those who read this will undoubtedly know that too. Still, even with the difficulty, that's got to be the priority here. Once that becomes the priority, information will fall into place. So long as Starcare's side is fine with trimming down the criticism section to focus on the bare criticisms that have solid, unanimously acknowledged sources, and ED MD's side is fine with having a substantial criticism section which is not limited to the abstract doctrine itself and which relates it with potentially unsavory terms such as 'terrorism' and others, then we're making progress. I won't add 'Doomsday' and 'terror aerial bombardment' to that sentence, because, although I know I've heard those terms on the news before, I don't remember when they were said, on which network, et cetera, and thus know that it wouldn't be correct, objective nor even fair. That sort of attitude, of willingness to sacrifice portions of one's argument in order to compromise, needs to be prevalent here. Again, once compromise is reached, the information will begin appearing in the text; gradually, yes, but it will. I think all of us can agree that cooperation is key here. That's my two cents. Maximilli, 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

   If they want to rely on the U.S. military establishment as primary sources, then I see nothing wrong with including the views of the World Socialist Website (along with Reuters and the Guardian newspaper and National Geographic and Ullman and Wade themselves, which all are in agreement) for balance. Anything less would not present a neutral point of view. Publicola 08:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: If it is true that people are deleting relevant references, and its basically abusing the system, we can just get a consensus to revert it. This is one crank. Should not be a problem. Someone's being rude. Work around it. Raise more awareness to the article and get a number of editors involved in monitoring the deletion of references and factual statements abouot criticism of the strategy. I also have to ask, what ED MD's interest in this issue is. The level of engagement and hostility makes it seem personal. To date there is no section reflecting the fact that some people find this kind of tactic a poor trade off and ineffective. When so many people, including prominent people, criticize it, that deserves some mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xproudfoot (talk • contribs)

Yes, include Criticism section but only criticism of "shock and awe" the doctrine and of the 3 day "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq, 2003, excluding criticism of the entire Iraq war.

1. ED MD [rationale follows] 08:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   I've never argued that a criticism section should not exist. Its the CONTENT off the criticism. So stick to what is being said below. In fact the criticism has already been stated.

   Whether or to what extent the United States fought a campaign of Shock and Awe is unclear by contradictory post-war assessments. Within two weeks of the United States' victory declaration, on 27 April, the Washington Post published an interview with Iraqi military personnel detailing demoralization and lack of command.[9] According to the soldiers, Coalition bombing was surprisingly widespread and had a severely demoralising effect. When United States tanks passed through the Iraqi military's Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units outside Baghdad to Saddam's presidential palaces, it caused a shock to troops inside Baghdad. Iraqi soldiers said there was no organization intact by the time the United States entered Baghdad, and that resistance crumbled under the presumption that "it wasn't a war, it was suicide."

   In contrast, in an October 2003 presentation to the United States House Committee on Armed Services, staff of the United States Army War College did not attribute their performance to Rapid Dominance. Rather, they cited technological superiority and "Iraqi ineptitude."[10] The speed of the Coalition's actions ("rapidity"), they said, did not affect Iraqi morale. Further, they said that Iraqi armed forces ceased resistance only after direct force-on-force combat within cities.

   This is the main controversy. A ciricism section needs to be specific to shock and awe to which Starcare has not make the case. Getting your friends to vote for your side is not a valid way to keep something in the article. By the way, the person who wrote the origial criticism is banned from editing since he kept on pushing POV. ED MD 08:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   The criticism section is not the ISSUE!!!! Its the contect that is the issue. Making claims and siting the wolrd socialist webpage is ridiculous! I have no problem with a criticism section. In fact I just added one in. Now if starcase can figure out what is relevant, then he too could include content. Its obivious, however, that he is trying to push a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ED MD (talk • contribs)

2. Having a sentence like this: "For example, mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents,[1] estimated by The Lancet researchers as about 285,000 people in the first 18 months of invasion (reported as "at least 100,000.")" makes very little sense given that most of that time period has nothing to do with the topic of the article. However the article could certainly expand, using reliable sources, on whether this strategy resulted in higher civilian casualties than other possible strategies would have. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Scribner Agree Specific to the use of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq, and criticism of the military aspect of the tactic, again, specific to it's use in Iraq. Numerous WP:RS reliable source policy violations in the second version, self-published materials, websites and individuals with extremist views. Also, the second version meanders off topic with speculative and anti-war sentiments not related to, "Shock and Awe/ Iraq/ Criticism."--Scribner 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   what's wrong with the sources? I agree it should be written better, but until someone does it should not be deleted willy-nilly. Comparing shock and awe to terrorism in some regards is not at all ridiculous - I know of an article that cites a West Point faculty doing exactly that. In any case, since no one objects to having a criticism section, why don't we start working on one?Xproudfoot 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   Note: response solicited Starcare 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

4. Agree The proper place for discussion of, and criticism of, the politics of the Iraq war is in a seperate article. Additionally, the references to terrorism appear one-sided, lack of a countervailing argument, and appear to represent original opinions. See Meta: Positive tone. At a minimum, references from apolitical/academic sources discussing terrorism and SaA seem necessary before inclusion should be considered.--Auric04 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, do not include Criticism section

Other

[edit] More mainstream sources

Here are some more mainstream sources which should probably be incorporated:

Trivedi, B. (Feb. 14, 2005) "Inside Shock and Awe" National Geographic Channel story at nationalgeographic.com accessed July 26, 2006. Interesting quotes:

"As a military tactic, shock and awe has been tried before during the last century—though it has rarely succeeded."

"Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."

(included in article. Starcare 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

Getz, A. (Mar. 21, 2003) "Getting Them to Do What We Want: The naval officer who claims credit for introducing the ‘shock and awe’ strategy to Colin Powell analyzes the attack on Baghdad" Newsweek Web Exclusive at msnbc.msn.com accessed July 26, 2006. Interesting quotes:

"[T]he press are loyal. And it’s terrific because for a long time the split between the press and the military was artificial and dangerous. I do an awful lot of television, and I haven’t heard of any reporter who’s let them down."

That quote in-and-of itself explains why a balanced point of view may only be possible with out-of-the-mainstream news sources. Starcare 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The National Geographic article is a good source. The problem is that you spliced sentences together. The text reads:

"As a military tactic, shock and awe has been tried before during the last century—though it has rarely succeeded. In World War I the Germans used zeppelins to cross the English Channel and drop bombs on Britain, convinced the English would be stunned into submission. In World War II Hitler's air force inflicted a 57-day bombing campaign—the Blitz-on Londoners who once again refused to surrender. The Japanese also survived and resisted prolonged air attacks—until the atomic bombs were dropped. Hiroshima and Nagasaki created both shock and awe."

The last paragraph reads:

"Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."

Taking the first sentence from the first paragraph and adding it to the sencond sentence in the last paragraph distorts the context. But including the whole second paragraph makes sense and does not distort a point of view. I already included it into the article. ED MD 20:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the references that you site do not support the inclusions

My initial points about this article have not been addressed. The maistream references do not claim what is included in the article. Will file with an admin. ED MD 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which inclusions do you claim are not supported by the references? As above, it should be easy to find several other references, often mainstream, saying the same thing. Your points were addressed, above, and your subsequent complaints were met with several additional references. If you really think anyone other than you believes that removing all the critisism results in a neutral point of view, I am cetain that any admin will tell you to take your issues to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Admins aren't supposed to decide content disputes. Starcare 02:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] These issues have been addressed and they are POV

Critics point out that the words "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. Shock and awe is in many ways difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. For example, mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents,[1] estimated by The Lancet researchers as about 285,000 people in the first 18 months of invasion (reported as "at least 100,000.") Shock and awe has has rarely succeeded as a military tactic. After several days of bombing, many Iraqis in Baghdad continued with working and shopping as bombs fell around them.

1)Which critics? Name the people who say that shock and awe was terror/terrorism.

At least two of the sources you keep deleting, which according to your userboxes you are politically opposed to. This is called "POV-pushing" and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The world socialist webpage would be considered fringe. Blatantly POV propaganda on wikipedia is not allowed. It has to at least be mainstream. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And the CommonDreams article which says the same thing, albeit in different words? One man's fringe is another man's center. NPOV policy requires that conflicting viewpoints both be included. Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2)Synonyms of terror does not mean that it is terrorism. Even if a "large" number of civilian death did occcur.

The text does not say that it "is" terrorism, it says that it is "difficult to distinguish from terrorism." Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And who stated that it was difficult to distinguish??? An editor on wikipedia? Anybody who cannot distinguish "shock and awe" from terrorism knows nothing about definitions. Site a reputible source, outside of world socialist webpage, that shock and awe is difficult to distinguish. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The cited references -- three of them, in fact. Have you read any? Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

3)Shock and awe was only the begining of the conflict and 285,000 people did not die during shock and awe. You are confusing this short few day campaign with the Iraqi war.

The Shock and Awe campaign was included in the beginning of the war, and used the most ordnance during that period. Most of the operations since, with a few exceptions like Falujah, have been mostly peaceful. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Give a number of people that died in the shock and awe campaign and that can stay. 285,000 people did not die in 2-3days of shock and awe. In addition, you are using the extreme range from the Lancet study. Why you choose only the extreme study of the multiple that do exist, and why you only select the high number is obvious. You are trying to push an agenda. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no such figures. The existing references discuss how the bombing campaigns at the start, the Shock and Awe, were responsible for most of the bloodshed other than in isolated coalition attacks such as Fallujah. This is the best we have. The referencdes to The Lancet article specifically states "18 months," so nobody will be confused about this. Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

4) the final sentence is fine...but belongs in the explanation section.

"Shock and Awe met significant criticism from both military and civilian sectors. United States theorists had criticized its assumptions of total information awareness, unmatched technology, and assumptions of symmetric warfare."

5)What military sectors? what about the second sentence. Is that sourced? Sounds meaningless to me.

Fine, edit the part about "military sectors" out, and/or delete that sentence. Don't revert the article wholesale destroying hours of others' work. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment [13]. Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,[14] and termed such plans as savagery.[1][2] The United States armed forces had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties [15].

All of these references are by extremist groups such as world socialist webpage. It just serves to establish a POV.

Common Dreams is not any more "extremist" than the National Defense University, who you have quoted. They are different ends of the spectrum, which is what balance is all about. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is common dreams? Site mainstream sources, ABC, NBC i.e The MEDIA. Not fringe media that nobody has ever heard of. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people haven't heard of the National Defense University, so should you remove those sources? Of course not. See "More mainstream sources" above for the reason why mainstream media outlets are suspect. Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe has has rarely succeeded as a military tactic. After several days of bombing, many Iraqis in Baghdad continued with working and shopping as bombs fell around them, going on with their everyday lives. The Shock and Awe attack was perhaps too precise because it did not instill terror in Iraqis.[16] Shock and Awe–style warfare has proven to be even less effective against the extended insurgency than against Iraq's military.

Shock and Awe for the 100th time was not directed at the insurgency!!!!!

Nonsense, much of the insurgency is said to be remnants of the military and political Saddam loyalists, as you well know. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

By definition the insurgency would exist only after occupation by US forces. Here is the definition on wiki: "An insurgency is an armed uprising, revolt, or insurrection against an established civil or political authority." Therefore, only following the establishment of a new "civil or political authority" can an insurgency technically exist. Prior to that it is military versus military. This is actually funny that I am arguing this point. Why don't you find ONE REFERENCE that states that shock and awe was directed at the insurgency. I think I've asked for this aobut 5 times now. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that the insurgency is composed in part of those who the shock and awe campaign was directed against? Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

At face value, the doctrine of shock and awe shares much in common with the tenets of terrorism, with both intending to affect political outcomes through non-traditional uses of military power. American supporters of Shock and Awe claim that unlike terrorism, Shock and Awe does not deliberately target civilians, although civilians could be killed. Critics however, point to the difficulty in reducing civilian casualties while bombing locations with high civilian population density.

Excluding considerations of moral supremacy, it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from terrorism, as both tactics' primary goal is to elicit terror, shock and awe. The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror." [2] [3]

This is complete original research. Site a credible resourse that states that Shock and awe was "terrorism'. Thank you.

Again, it doesn't say "is"; it says "it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from" terrorism. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And again, who made this statment!!!! some wikipedian with a bone to pick? ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is from the dictionary definition and thesarus synonyms of the words themselves. If the words are listed in the dictionary and thesarus as meaning the same thing, and the purpose is the same, and the means to the end are the same, and the indiscriminate civilian deaths are the same, then, by common sense, they are difficult to distinguish. The dictionary and thesarus are all you need as sources to support that obvious fact. Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indiscriminate civilian deaths section

This is a criticism of the Iraqi war and not of the shock and awe campaign. ED MD 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe was the first part of the war, and most of the bombing. Except for Falujah and a few other events, there has been little bombing since, with most killing localized to small arms. Starcare 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And the point being? Remember we are talking specifically about shock and awe, not the entire war! Most of the deaths have occured due to the continued insurgency. And the fact of the matter is that the insurgents want to continue killing everybody off. Shiites killing off the Sunnis, sunnis killing off the shiites, and of course killing off anybody they can get their hands on. Anyway, stick to shock and awe only. You can place the Lancet "study" in the Iraqi war article. ED MD 08:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is addressed above. Explicitly stating the statistic is for the first 18 months, the length of the shock and awe campaign is also mentioned. Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re-introduced the criticism section

The section specifically mentions the issues on whether or not this was a true "shock and awe" campaign. ED MD 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it might have been better to do this before you tried to blank, load, and stack the survey? Starcare 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a criticism section now. Its a relevant one. And not one that has world socialist webpage, not any attempts to like terms to make them sould like something else. In addition, everything is reference. Still things that I am waiting on you to do such: find the referene which says that shock and awe was directed at the insurgency. ED MD 09:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only a critique of the execution of shock and awe in the limited context of the Iraq war, not a critique of the concept in general, which you deleted. Starcare 09:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I once again agree with Starcare on this last comment above, so the survey stands firm. And to shed light on some allegations, I didn't heard of Starcare before I stumbled upon this article. Take care --Xasf 13:29, 27 July 2006 (GMT+3)

[edit] Popular Culture

The reference in the Popular Culture section to the Toby Keith's album was deleted because it is irelevant. This is the removed piece: "Shock'n Y'all" was the title of a 2003 Toby Keith album." The title sounding vaguely like "Shock and Awe" does not warrant inclusion of this nonsense in the article. The album may contain some statements of a political nature which would warrant inclusion elsewhere. If anyone knows of any reason why this reference belongs here please feel free to reinsert it with some explanation of why it is a relevant inclusion.

[edit] Starcare: POV issues and lies

Starcare has requested a "vote" to attempt to place POV issues into the article. As of yet he has not answered questions regarding the neutrality/POV issues that he has placed in the article. I will summarize the evidence:

1)Here is the summary info: "Critics point out that the words "shock" and "awe" are both synonyms of terror. Shock and awe is in many ways difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. For example, mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, for example, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents,[1] estimated by The Lancet researchers as about 285,000 people in the first 18 months of invasion (reported as "at least 100,000.") Shock and awe has has rarely succeeded as a military tactic. After several days of bombing, many Iraqis in Baghdad continued with working and shopping as bombs fell around them."

Response: the definitions of shock and awe do not have terror in the definition. A search of Thesarus.com also does not have terror or terrorism as a synonym. Hence the first line is a lie and it is origial research. There is no link supporting its claim.

The URLs you include are not even the ones I cited, which were: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shock which includes "3: strike with horror or terror; 'The news of the bombing shocked her'" and http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=awe which includes:

Main Entry: awe

Synonyms: admiration, apprehension, astonishment, consternation, dread, esteem, fear, fright, horror, regard, respect, reverence, shock, stupefaction, terror, veneration, wonder, wonderment, worship

Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

wow, I din;t get to the bottom of the page to find it. The one out of the 50 contexts that it can be used in. HOW ABOUT A REFERENCE FROM CRITICS THAT MAKES THE CLAIM AS OPPOSED TO ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON WIKIPEDIA. ED MD

"to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths" is not a distinguishing factor of terrorism from a military operation. Large number versus small numbers are not the distinguishing factors. Civilian deaths do not define the difference between terrorism versus a military operation.

Then find some sources supporting your opinion instead of deleting the sources documenting the large numbers of indiscriminate civilian deaths at the outset of the war and occupation. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are interested in the statistics. I doubt that it has been even done. But you can't include all the causualties for the entire war when the article is specific to just shock and awe. ED MD 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with inclusion of causualties, but the inclusion is being expanded for 18 months. Operation "shock and awe" lasted for a few days before ground forces engaged the Baath party. Also, the number by Lancet is only half of the information. Multiple other research articles include other information on the estimated number of death, but to only include the most controversial study with the highest numbers is a POV attempt at distorting the subject. The subject is adequately covered in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq where it should be since "shock and awe" is only the initial aspect of the invasion, and does not deal with the subsequent war with the insurgents.

18 months is the shortest period available. This is addressed above. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then its inclusing is longer than shock and awe and is inappropriate here. ED MD 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section:

"Shock and Awe met significant criticism from both military and civilian sectors. United States theorists had criticized its assumptions of total information awareness, unmatched technology, and assumptions of symmetric warfare."

this needs clarification: specifically "United States theorists had criticized its assumptions". What assumptions? what was the criticism? ...of symmetric warfare??? what does that mean?

Fine, it's not something I wrote. Let's take it out instead of reverting the entire article. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment [13]. Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,[14] and termed such plans as savagery.[1][2] The United States armed forces had said that targets, munitions and attack times were chosen to minimize civilian casualties [15]."

This paragraph has severe POV issues.

1)the term "mass media" is used, but the references are are distorted. The Guardian reference [15] does not use either phrase of "indiscriminate," "doomsday," or terror aerial bombardment. Hence the reference is a complete lie.

2)the guernica reference is correct, but the criticism is coming from the alternet.org. Far from mainstrem "mass media" as the paragraph claims. This page engages in severe distortions of fact such as:

"The Pentagon dubbed its cold-blooded attack plan "Shock and Awe," a bizarre conjunction of trauma and admiration"

"But have missiles also been preset to obliterate the al-Qadiriya Shrine, the Tomb of Imam al-A'dham and the Mosque of Sheik Abdul Qadir al-Ghailani?"

"Similarly, the destruction of Baghdad seems designed to underscore Bush's belligerent warning to the rest of the world: "You're either with us or you're against us."

"Washington's new National Security Strategy describes an America dominating the world militarily, politically and economically."

Alternet.org commentary are not "fringe views", although I agree the Guardian statement should go if it doesn't support the quote. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternet is by far not mass media. Its a liberal leaning group. How about a liberal reference AFTER shock and awe occured. Becuase if you read the articles, the "shock and awe" campaign was PULLED. Read the "criticism of execution" section. I suspect facts are not important to you. ED MD 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3)the term savagery is supported by a link from the World Socialist Webpage.[16] this is again, not "mass media" and completely fringe. Read any other article on the site. Wikipedia has a response to this type of reference:

"editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities, although editors should proceed with caution. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources. "

Seems to me that "World Socialist Webpage" and falls into that category.

I have already replaced that source with a CommonDreams column which you have not yet commented on. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Commondreams??? How about some mainstream sources? Afterall, you did state "mass media" to describe the "world socialist webpage" ED MD 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Shock and awe has has rarely succeeded as a military tactic. After several days of bombing, many Iraqis in Baghdad continued with working and shopping as bombs fell around them, going on with their everyday lives. The Shock and Awe attack was perhaps too precise because it did not instill terror in Iraqis.[16] Shock and Awe–style warfare has proven to be even less effective against the extended insurgency than against Iraq's military."

The second to the last sentence is relevant, and I will include them in the article.

You have not been; you have continiously been deleting it from the article, again today. I will answer no further questions until you stop lying about your own editing. Starcare 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please you have been lying for the longest time with your fake surveys that distort the truth. ED MD 23:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

However, Starcare still states the "shock and awe" is directed at the insurgency. This is completely ridiculous! Shock and awe was directed at the Baath party, the people in control and the structed military. Once the military structure was disolved and the US took over control, the term "insurgency" is applied. Read insurgency for a precise definition. Starcare has repeatedly attempted to insert false information like this.

Also, there is not one reference to Shock and awe being directed at the insurgency. I have requested multiple times for ONE REFERENCE. He reply is "Do you deny that the insurgency is composed in part of those who the shock and awe campaign was directed against? Starcare 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)" Obviously, he cannot provide any references because the fact of the matter is that he is trying to push a point of view and expand a topic outside of its scope.

"Excluding considerations of moral supremacy, it is difficult to determine if Shock and Awe is empirically different from terrorism, as both tactics' primary goal is to elicit terror, shock and awe. The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror." [2] [3]"

This is original research. Who is stating that "shock and awe" is akin to terrorism? A wiki editor? There needs to be some source support. Providing definitions is inadequate. In fact, war causes terror. Does that mean that war is terrorism. Spiders to some people may cause terror. Does that mean that spiders are terrorists? The ridiculousness of claim is beyond POV.

Finally the "indiscriminate civilian deaths" section needs to be limited to the Shock and awe campaign not the operation iraqi freedom campaign. I have no objections to statistics being placed for "shock and awe." I only ask that they be in reference to shock and awe and not the entire war. Otherwise, that would be akin to describing the casualties in the battle of the buldge an stating the number fo people who died in world war II. ED MD 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is trying to govern by intimidation or terror or to change government policy by it. Terrorism is not warfare in the conventional sense, whereas "shock and awe" is mostly an alternate name for "blitzkreig", and is conventional warfare by sudden blow and impressiveness (in the case of Iraq, somewhat to impress foreign powers of military dominance). It is not the same thing at all. Shock is not terror, either in the political sense or the personal sense. —Centrx→talk • 07:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I voted for a criticism section of, "Shock and Awe/Iraq/Criticism". These peripheral issues may have validity in some other article, but clearly do not belong in this section. This section is the criticism of a military tactic, specific to it's use in Iraq. End of story.--Scribner 09:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey response solicitation

I see that ED MD was unsatisfied with the fact that he was losing the survey, and so decided to go and solicit additional responses from friends, which distorts the responses.

I'm going to replace the controversial sections, asking one thing:

If you disagree with a portion, please find an opposing source and add it in a "However...." statement, instead of simply reverting.

Thank you. Starcare 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed World Socialist Web Site source, since the Common Dreams article said much the same thing. Starcare 22:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Starcare, write a response to the above criticism of the article. Did you know the the The Guardian reference [17] does not use any of the following phrases: "indiscriminate," "doomsday," or "terror aerial bombardment" and yet it is referenced!?!?!?!? I guess facts don't matter to you. Your survey was full of crap, as your question distorted my positon. Read the responses to your insertion attempts, and why don;t you try to answer the POV questions above. ED MD 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean the questions where you said you approved of the National Geographic reference, but didn't include it, and deleted it three times today? I stopped answering after I realized that. Please play fair. Starcare 23:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to terrorism and indiscriminate civilian deaths are Original Research and clearly don't belong in the section. WP:NOR WP:RS and WP:POV--Scribner 23:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starcare: look at the criticism section that I wrote

If you note on the "criticism of execution" section that I wrote, there are NINE direct quotes with very little verbage inbetween. Whereas the the references sited by you, such as the Guardian, had three claimed quotes attributed to the article but when you read the article NONE of the passages where there. Claiming ignorance is not a sufficent defense for those type of inclusions/lies. You really should appologize for your behavior. ED MD 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write that section, and as soon as you pointed out the problem, I changed it to reflect a quote which was actually in the cited article. But that doesn't matter, because you reverted it along with everything else critisising the doctrine right away, three times, without any discussion on the talk page regarding those reversions.

You think I should apologise? Perhaps you should apologise for your 3RR violation, trying to destroy the survey, editing the survey question in Wikipedia:Current surveys, trying to load the question, and then soliciting responses from your friends. Too bad you can't push the POV you want without resorting to those tactics. Starcare 01:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why were you so strongly trying to insert that paragraph then? It is full of lies and it has been documented why it was removed--read the history. Have you noticed that nobody else is advocating its inclusion becuase of all of its errors? Maybe you should read what you are trying to insert, instead of claiming "I did not write that section." Ignorance may be bliss, but keep the POV out. The article is on "shock and awe," and references to its criticism can be introduced but it should be limited to "shock and awe" and not operation "Iraqi freedom". In fact, I included the Guardian reference with the whole phrase included which stated "unprecedentedly heavy aerial bombardment" as opposed to the lie of "terror aerial bombardment." Did you know that the lines "indiscriminate 'Doomsday'" is not in the article as well as the reference claims. Do you not see that lying is unacceptable? I think its a straight forward case: either you are interested in the truth or you are not. ED MD 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources seem to be talking about shock and awe as a method to frighten people and get them to stop fighting, but this is not the same thing as "terrorism". —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Try doing a "define: terrorism" on Google. Here are a few examples:

• (US Department of Defense): the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.
• (FBI): the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
• Or you can take a look at our local definition of terrorism article. I'm sure you will see some relevant definitions.

I don't want to get into the justification of Operation Iraqi Freedom issue, but simply put: Attacking another sovereign country without UN Security Council approval is as "unlawful" as it gets (in the international law sense). So, unlawful use of force? Check. Aim to intimidate/coerce in furtherance of political objectives through that force? Check. Therefore I think it is perfectly appropriate to mention existing "terrorism - shock & awe" comparisons in the case of Iraq war and that it would be wrong to simply dismiss that as irrelevant.

And I'm also concerned about the still ongoing and mostly bilateral revert/edit storm taking place here. Do you think we should elevate the issue and request for mediation? Take care --Xasf 09:02, 31 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Xasf Terrorists have never used a Shock and Awe technique, as defined by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade. I see your point, but unless you can provide a couple of reliable sources claiming the similarities then it's not valid in this article. Definitions are not valid sources--I can claim similarities to air and water with definitions.--Scribner 06:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And you would be right since they are both governed by similar physics :) (see fluid dynamics, for example) So you could possibly write a valid article comparing air and water if you stick to their common attributes and revolve your comparison around that. Just as I suggest we do here with terrorism and S&A. Please note that I don't say that we make the comparison out of the blue ourselves, but we can certainly mention if such comparisons already exist out there. Take care --Xasf 10:24, 31 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Agreed. IF you can provide a couple of reliable sources claiming the similarities of SaA&T, I'll support you 100%. I found claims of targeting civilians alleging similarities, but it was from a Hamas publication. And, targeting civilians is not a component of "Shock and Awe", whereas terrorism does target civilians, as of course you know.

Since this is an encyclopedia we have to verify our statements with reliable sources. WP:RS.--Scribner 07:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That I leave to the original posters of the comparison section, at least for now. Take care --Xasf 11:03, 31 July 2006 (GMT+3)

Xasf: its obvious that you have a political bias for the inclusion of your belief, but it is not widely held. The war is viewed by opponents "of the coalition" as an illegal WAR. The next step you take is a fringe interpretation. Simply because "shock" and "awe" have "terror" as synonyms does not make "shock and awe" "terrorism." If that was the case, then shock has the synonym "jarring" and awe has the synonym "stupefaction." Ergo, Shock[17] and Awe[18] must therefore mean JARRING STUPEFACTION. lol. Likewise, Germany invading Poland was technically illegal, but it wasn't called World Terrorism II, it was WWII. For your assertion to be included, find a respectable widely distributed newspaper reference (i.e. something other than Al Jazeer, or however you spell it). ED MD 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing views to keep

Of the stuff which ED MD reverted, I think these are the most important to put back in:

• According to its original theorists, Shock and Awe renders an adversary unwilling to resist through overwhelming displays of power. Frequent comparisons are made by these theorists to the effect of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Chernus, I. (January 27, 2003) " Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?" Common Dreams News Center article at CommonDreams.org accessed July 26, 2006.)

• Shock and awe is in many ways difficult to distinguish from terrorism because of the large number of indiscriminate civilian deaths. For example, mortality due to violence in Iraq since 2003, has been due to coalition forces far more than insurgents,[19] estimated by The Lancet researchers as about 285,000 people in the first 18 months of invasion (reported as "at least 100,000.")
• Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shock and awe was understood to mean "indiscriminate, terror-inducing destructiveness." (Oliver Burkeman, "Shock tactics", The Guardian, 25 March 2003.)

• Shock and awe has has rarely succeeded as a military tactic. After several days of bombing, many Iraqis in Baghdad continued with working and shopping as bombs fell around them, going on with their everyday lives. The Shock and Awe attack was perhaps too precise because it did not instill terror in Iraqis. (Trivedi, B. (Feb. 14, 2005) "Inside Shock and Awe" National Geographic Channel story at nationalgeographic.com accessed July 26, 2006.)

• Ullman and Wade themselves write, "the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm." (Chapter 2)

• The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror."

As far as I can tell, ED MD hasn't complained about those passages, except for the dictionary and thesarus definitions, but he was shown to be wrong about those, here on this talk page above.

dictionary and thesarus definitions..., make sure you're within policy WP:RS.--Scribner 09:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the dictionary not a reliable source for word definitions? Since when is the thesarus not a reliable source of synonyms? You're just making policy up to suit your wishes, aren't you? Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the re-inclusion of those statements? 71.132.129.39 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A URL for the Ullman and Wade quote is [20], and the clarification by the Lancet author is at [21] (with a resulting figure of 298,000 dead.) Starcare 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The second is totally unacceptable. Civilian death counts for the whole war are irrelevant to this article and should not be included. Also, piping "indiscriminate civilian deaths" to collateral damage is highly deceptive. The last shouldn't be included because it's an obvious attempt at POV point-scoring and doesn't impart any actual useful information to the article. Otherwise they seem reasonable. Reading the article, the Guardian quote also totally distorts the meaning of what the article says by taking the words out of context. In the article that view is attributed to opponents of the Iraq War and is described as having developed with the war rather than come before it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to your views

• Common Dreams News Center is not a reliable source. From their website, "

A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.

activist left,and self-published, not a reliable source. Not to mention they contradict Ullman.

They are a reliable source, as a news outlet with an editorial staff. The article in question was written by a Religion professor. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Check policy WP:RS--Scribner 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What in WP:RS do you claim disallows CommonDreams.org? They are not "self-published" -- their editor is Craig Brown who has been publishing others' work on the site since 1997. Starcare 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• UKWatch ([17]) is not a reliable source. From their website, "It aims to provide space encouraging debate and research, as well as a forum for developing a broad, cross-issue appreciation of the challenges facing the radical activist left in the UK.

Again, not a reliable source. 18 months of Shock and Awe? No.WP:RS

It doesn't say 18 months. Plus, they're republishing an article from another source, so it doesn't matter what you think of UKWatch. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Check policy WP:RS--Scribner 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, exactly what are you saying from WP:RS disallows the source? UKWatch is just republishing this article from MediaLens, which in turn is an interview of a respected authority by an independent media organization with a legitimate editorial board. What exactly in WP:RS do you claim impeaches the source? Starcare 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• "indiscriminate, terror-inducing destructiveness.", not according to Ullman. Let's quote your fifth point: Ullman and Wade themselves write, "the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm." (Chapter 2)

What's the problem? Those statements are consistent. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No they're not, Ullman's words trump.--Scribner 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way to Ullman's words contradict the Guardian quote? Even if they did, why would that not allow the Guardian quote as a critical view? Do you think that NPOV means censorship of all opposing views because the original authority on a concept "trumps" all of his critics? Absurd! Starcare 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• From your, National Geographic cite, "Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical."

Fine. I've never disputed that. Surgical strikes can still cause indiscriminate civilian deaths. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The words "shock" and "awe" are in fact both synonyms of "terror." So what? Trust me, synonyms are not a reliable source, per policy.

Which policy, exactly? Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) WP:RS You need to read it to prevent future mistakes.--Scribner 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Scribner, WP:RS doesn't address synonyms. At least, I couldn't find anything there about it. Care to clarify? Maximilli 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Counterpunch.org, self-published, Starcare, get up to speed on verifiability on Wikipedia.--Scribner 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, CounterPunch is an independent newsletter which has been around for decades -- long before the web -- and has a legitimate editorial board. It is exactly the kind of organization which WP:RS encourages for opposing views. Am I correct in assuming that you disagree with its politics? Tough. You are the one who needs to read Wikipedia policies, not I. No wonder you can only refer to the policies without referring to any particular passage in them to support your views -- you have no support for your views in policy or guidelines. Starcare 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpcnhwFlIA&mode=related&search= Propaganda video, with copyright violations.--Scribner 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Linking to an external source is not a copyright violation. You are obviously a newbie to even suggest such a thing. You can not call something "propaganda" just because you disagree with its political message. In this case, it is "balance" to an otherwise completely one-sided article. Starcare 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Starcare, follow policy and guidelines and I won't have a problem with your edits. The burden of proof is on the editor to verify claims and it isn't as easy as you seem to claim. Make sure you understand primary and secondary sources, self-published, peer review, activism in sources. Looks like you need bush up on POV and NOR policies, also. You've violated each of these policies. Show some good faith.--Scribner 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to the inclusion of your statements. WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:RS--Scribner 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I propose to request for mediation before the debate spirals out of control and personal attacks break out. Also may I remind both parties of WP:COOL while we are talking of policies? Take care --Xasf 08:32, 01 August 2006 (GMT+3)

[edit] Well stated Scribner

• 1)To some , shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism.---these are weasel words. Who is "some"? Its original research and still ZERO references to it. Again it gets deleted. ED MD 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• 2)To those in the US, such perceptions may be incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored.^[1]---The reference does not state this.ED MD 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, which contains:

"To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11.

"To the homespun folks in Middletown, California - recorded by the BBC the other day singing patriotic songs around their dinner table - such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored."

As you can see, both statements are fully source-supported. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people in the arab world will react in this way. But the way it is written, did not specify this. You can easily write it in the article: shock and awe was met with significant opposition in the arab world. ED MD 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• 3)Terrorism and shock and awe share in common the use of indiscriminate civilian deaths; for example, the March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than ever before.^[2] --- Original research. You have to have a mainstream article state that shock and awe was indistinguishable from terrorism. You have not found a source yet. It goes. ED MD 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the article. It completely supports that statement. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Read it again: it does not use "indiscriminate." I already included the statistics on number of deaths from shock and awe--about 8,000. Any more "interpretation" borders is commentary. I think this article should just stick to facts. ED MD 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• 4) Over 8,000 people in Iraq were killed from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when US-led forces carried out their ‘shock and awe’ bombing campaign on Baghdad.^[3] ---GOOD SOURCE!!! WILL INCLUDE INTO ARTICLE! ED MD 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So glad you approve. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• 5) The bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's essential civilian infrastructures of electrical power, communications, water, sewers, schools, healthcare facilities, and its economy.^[4]--- Poor source. Counterpunch.org??? what is that? This is a blog. You can't site fringe opinions in wiki articles. ED MD 09:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a newsletter, published for decades by Alexander Cockburn, and a well-respected one at that. You continue to delete things simply because you don't agree with the politics of the source which is POV-pushing, plain and simple. One way or another, this article will be balanced. Would you prefer it be balanced without you being banned by the ArbCom from ever editing it again? If so, I suggest you self-revert your recent 3RR violation before an admin gets around to it. Starcare 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Its a newsletter. There are sufficent mainstream newspapers to write an article like this without having to go to "counterpunch.org." ED MD 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That source is only used for the quote about destruction of the civilian infrastructure. Since you claim that there are plenty of sources with which your politics agree which report the same fact, I urge you to replace the source instead of reverting the inclusion of the statement. Starcare 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a source that is not a left-wing, self-published webpage. Then include it. Its that simple. all we are asking for are good sources, to which you have not established and when you do find good sources such as National geographic, you splice sentences together to create meaning other than the context of the article. Its obvious that you are on a POV crusade. ED MD 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations from a Passing Observer

There does seem to be some room for criticism of shock and awe, but it should avoid political matters and focus on military efficacy. This is, after all, an article about a military strategy, so it seems logical to constrain discussion to the merits/problems of that strategy, and not the political implications or aftermath of its appliation. It seems far more appropriate to discuss the origins of this concept, its application to the Iraq War, and the opinions of scholars of military strategy on well it worked. Expanding commentary to the broader political debate over the Iraq War and its legality/moraliy are frankly belong the scope of this article, and I'm sure are quite adequately addressed by the article(s) on the war.

On specific issues that keep recurring:

1)Many of the objections to the current page stem from an effort to expand the content of this page beyond a strictly encyclopedic definition of "Shock and Awe" to something of a broader commentary on the Iraq War. The key is that while statements may be technically true, their inclusion suggests connections that express an obvious POV. See Meta: Positive tone for what I'm talking about. For example, references to terrorism (as synonyms to "shock" and "awe" or as sharing characteristics of "shock and awe") are clearly biased statements. A connection between terrorism and "shock and awe" is not an issue that I have ever seen raised in the mainstream media. So comments about terrorism may be technically correct, but referencing them in the same article creates an unusual parallel expressing obvious bias. Civil disobedience and terrorism share characteristics (both are used to resist government authority), but the civil disobedience article never references terrorism. Ditto with references to depleted uranium and the 1991 Gulf War, which predate the formulation of the "Shock and Awe" strategy by 7 years.

2) Many of the editorial comments referenced by Starcare are from outlets that do not appear to be mainstream news sources. If their views had been echoed by a a single widely known news source, or a source that was academic or apolitical, it would be different. However, all referenced sites appear avowedly "activist" liberal or progressive sites, and all seem to be a part of a debate that's removed from the mainstream. To say the editorial opinions of apparently fringe sites represent a part of a serious, widespread debate strains credibility.--Auric04 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said Auric, This is a tough article since so many people want to push a POV. Nobody seems to be interested in writting about the tactic, only writting about its implementation in Iraq, which by all accounts from military stategists was nowhere near a shock and awe campaign. I actually find that aspect funny. Seems to me that language is more important than reality. ED MD 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is the policy on these "popular culture" sections?

In my opinion, the popular culture sections are just a bunch of loose associations. I have come across very few that were interesting and/or informative. In this article who cares if somebody tried to patent a golf club and call it shock and awe? Or some vague country song? I think that most of these sections do not belong. I would ask this question in terms of relevence: would a print version of the encyclopedia have these meaningless associations listed? ED MD 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

...Will remove the "popular culture" section. These sections in my opinion are unencyclopedic. Anybody who believes otherwise??? ED MD 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starcare, cite all claims

Mixing propaganda with leftist or pov claims is a policy violation. Stop the propaganda crusade.--Scribner 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the current inclusions are balance from Ullman and Wade themselves, and mainstream sources (except, arguably, for Counterpunch, which is easy to replace from mainstream sources for its quote, as ED MD noted above.) However, I think it is appropriate to add at least one left-wing news source since so much of this article depends on National Defense University publication which is perhaps even further from the mainstream view. Starcare 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're adding the propaganda in the opening paragraph, not in the section regarding the Iraq invasion. Second, the material is uncited and is original research. The material is not just pov, it's propaganda.--Scribner 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, not a single claim is uncited. All but one are from fully mainstream sources. Moreover, if you look at the #Survey above, you will see that everyone except ED MD had voted for including such information in the intro (not the "opening paragraph" as you incorrectly state, by the way) until ED MD started soliciting survey responses from the likes of you. Starcare 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Starcare has returned with a paragraph in the introduction and a section in the Iraqi section. What I've done is to tag the whole article unsourced (for this reason), and add this HTML code at the beginning of the unsourced sections and at the end of the sections. The code hides the sections--Starcare is aware of this.

We've got some Islamic contributors [22] with whom User:Starcare is communicating regarding this article, FYI.--Scribner 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What does my religioun have to do with anything in this article? I feel offended. Further, i was active in this article way before Starcare came here (to my knoweledge). --Striver 11:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So? Anyway, Scribner, do you realize you now have the unsourced tag on the article without any of the inclusions you've been objecting to, which implies that you think some other portion than my inclusions are unsourced? Starcare 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's policy. The tag remains for a reasonable amount of time, 48 hours in your case before I delete your material and remove the tag. It's a good faith effort to give you time to cite your contributions. WP:RS--Scribner 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Which of my contributions are you claiming are not supported by the cited sources? Starcare 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Among others -- "To those in the US, such perceptions may be incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." You cite this as fact when in the source it is obviously editorializing. This is a disingenous use of the reference. Your cititations to the dictionary definitions of shock and awe are obviously intended to make a point that, equally obviously, was not intended by the writers of the dictionary. As such this is an original synthesis (original research), aside from being really stupid. And of course, you use these sources to make the ridiculously broad and patently unsupportable claim that to those in the Arab world shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To take another example, "Terrorism and shock and awe share in common the use of indiscriminate civilian deaths; for example, the March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than ever before." This doesn't even make sense -- before what? -- but let's assume that it did. The second part is simply not an "example" of the first. The fact that civilians died doesn't indicate that shock and awe employs indiscriminate civilian deaths, and indeed one source notes that the campaign may have been too discriminate to achieve its effect. If you want to claim that shock and awe used indiscriminate civilian deaths, find a source that attests to U.S. failure to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the source; the part which says "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11. To the homespun folks in Middletown, California - recorded by the BBC the other day singing patriotic songs around their dinner table - such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible, but they are real and cannot be ignored." might be particularly enlightening. The fact that the dictionary and thesarus both show that "terror" is a synonym is a fact, a fully sourced fact. It might seem "really stupid" to you, but that is your problem, and as a sourced fact it stays in the article. As for your other example, again, you need to read the source which states, "It's the first time an attack in Baghdad has killed so many civilians." Your objections are completely without merit. Starcare 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is an editorial comment. In the encyclopedia format, it is a needless comment that is intended to drive home a specific fact. To be fair, we should just state the facts and let the reader assess the information. A fair claim that you can make based on this topic would read as follows: "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name." This is the factual content that the article presents.Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris? Shock and Awe is not terrorism. This is NOT a compromise!--Scribner 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now we know why the Guardian author wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible". Starcare 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Read what you just wrote, "such perceptions may be utterly incomprehensible." No way, pal.--Scribner 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is, by the way, exactly the phrasing you deleted five times. Publicola 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

HEADS UP, I didn't delete anything, I requested a cite five times.--Scribner 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not, however the article can include the fact that one writer for the Guardian thinks it is. It could also include the opinions of journalists who disagree, feel free to add such. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not an "editorial comment," it is a news report describing real Arabs and real Middletown, Californians, and their real definitional disconnect which your groundless objections illustrate almost as well. However, I will support your "by another name" phrasing when I can next edit. Starcare 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is completely obviously an editorial comment, in the same way that if I were to write, "George Bush is President. Yeah, it's really true, he is," the first part would be the factual content and the second would be the editorial comment. If you decide to revert the article, please make clear what "before" refers to. As I said, it will still be a non-sequitur; the example provided doesn't demonstrate that indiscrimiante civilian casualties occured. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that the reference for the "indiscriminate" statement says, "People travelling in their cars had been incinerated.... An eyewitness said, 'Two rockets, one on this side, one on that side. There's no military base here. There are no weapons or soldiers here. They are all civilians. Men, women and children, going along the road. I saw it with my own eyes.' A restaurant frequented by workers in the area was hit.... Two days ago, a house on the street we are on was hit.... If daytime air raids continue, it's inevitable that more civilians will lose their lives and fewer will see the Americans and British as their liberators." If that isn't the epitome of indiscriminate, then what is? Starcare 06:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper article needs to say "indiscriminate" and it needs to be a whole sentence, not the typical take out of context reference from Starcare. The fact of the matter is shock and awe used much more precision guided weapons. "Indiscriminate" would be something like carpet bombing. I think Starcare is Striver, a guy who only does references to Islam (scrubs references to terrorism on those pages, and then comes out to claim that the US is the terrorist nation[23]) and tries to promote anti-semitism. Starcare has only edited on Shock and Awe probably so as not to get his Striver user name in trouble. ED MD 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I shall request mediation here. Starcare 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat.--Scribner 03:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to chip in, here is a reliable source mentioning that the US intervention in Iraq translates to terrorism for a noteworthy amount of people over there: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG04Ak02.html

About the source: http://atimes01.atimes.com/mediakit/aboutus.html

One can of course always question if the reactions to the US intervention in general should carry over to the S&A, but I think S&A was too fundamental in Operation Iraqi Freedom to escape without its share of the overall criticism. Take care --Xasf 13:09, 03 August 2006 (GMT+3)

[edit] Mediation request

The problem here is that, according to the #Survey above, people believe that the article is unbalanced and should include criticism. However, ED MD and Scribner have been deleting or commenting out any such inclusions. Here is an example of the problematic edits -- that one is a commenting with the inclusion of a tag suggesting some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but there are plenty of similar reverts (including those responsible for two blocks of ED MD for 3RR violations in the past week) in the article's edit history. (A note on the Survey: ED MD initially tried to blank, load, and stack the survey, and then when he was shown to be the only respondent holding his point of view, he resorted to soliciting responses from his friends.) The people involved are those responding to the survey and editing (and reverting) the article. I hope mediation can accomplish a compromise version acceptable to all parties. Starcare 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that Christopher Parham is another shill recuited for survey support by ED MD. Starcare 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) If that were true, it would not be a personal attack. However, I did not check the timestamps and I see now that C.P. arrived here before being invited by ED MD. I attempted to revert what, since false, amounted to a personal attack; however, since Scribner reverted it back, I am striking it. Please disregard. Starcare 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert confusion

This is one section I require comment on: < !--To civilian victims, the Arab world, and others world-wide, shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Ullman and Wade claim that the ability to frighten, scare, and intimidate is a fundamental part of the doctrine. Shock and awe has resulted in high numbers of indiscriminate civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure. The words "shock" and "awe" are both synonymous with "terror."-- >

It's still there, never left the article, but I require a cite. I gave you 48 hours to provide a cite. Find your cite or the contribution disappears.--Scribner 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You've shown bad faith regarding this requirement. So, now I'm removing the material.--Scribner 09:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Do NOT remove the critical video, it blatantly violates NPOV to remove one view. --Striver 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problems with the new inclusion...again.

Introduction section:

"To some, particularly in the Arab world, shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism. Ullman and Wade claim that the ability to frighten, scare, and intimidate is a fundamental part of the doctrine. Shock and awe has resulted in high numbers of civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure."

If you are going to write a summary, one should summarize the entire aspect, not just the aspects that they want to have heard. The first sentence is not supported. The reaction is an arab one that they claim that shock and awe was akin to 9/11. Changing the phrasology now to "to some, particularly in the Arab world" distorts that meaning. The Ullman quote doe not belong in the summary for the Iraq campaign, after all the "summary" presented didn't even talk about the campaign other than the allegation of "terrorism" aspect. Finally writing "high numbers of civilian deaths" is a POV attempt to distort the truth. There are two references that state the number is over 8,000. So stick with facts and try not to distort them. Otherwise your mediation is going to get blown out of the sand dune.

I deleted the mention of "terror" from the header (again, I believe). It seems fairly clear to me that this is specifically citing a small section of the article is an effort to add bias. The "terrorism" section receives the same amount of space in the intro as the many-times longer "SaA in the Iraq War" section. This is clearly not approriate and reflects an effort to push a POV in the intro. The intro should be the 10 second version of the concept - discussion of criticism doesn't belong, unless it defines the concept in some sense. In this case, neither criticism of it's efficacy nor of the concept itself seems to add to the understanding of what "shock and awe" means. That said, it would seem that there is room for conceptual criticism, as advocated by Starcare et. al., IF it is framed properly. That is to say, careful, accurate attribution of quotes and clarity about WHO it is holds the belief. I think what I've written includes the disputed material while being carefully NPOV.

--Auric04 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Comparison to terrorism

To some critics, shock and awe is terrorism by another name. As Ullman and Wade writes "The ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm." [14]

An article from the Guardian noted a disconnect between some in the Arab world, who view it as "a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11" and others who find these views "incomprehensible."[15] As Ullman and Wade write: "The ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm."[16] The bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's essential civilian infrastructures of electrical power, communications, water, sewers, schools, healthcare facilities, and its economy.[17]

Comment: 1) "comparison to terrorism" as a title is POV. An NPOV title would be "arab reaction." Just like one could title "criticism of execution" for the plan and title it--"shock and awe never occured". The line "shock and awe is terrorism by another name" is not supported by the following sentence. Ullman would have to use the term "terrorism" for it to be included. As an aside, do you really think that Ullman would describe "shock and awe" as terrorism? I don't think so, so trying to use his quotes to form a "thesis" statment here is inappropriate. Not only that, the quote is again used in the next paragraph. How about people reading what they write before they include it??? The second paragraph is otherwise adequate although I will have to find quotes that stated that some Iraqi's greeted the US as liberators so there is balance between the opinions. Hence because of ths balance, the title of the section needs to be changed to "arab reation" once again. Finally, the section is related to the Iraq campaign. Therefore, it needs to be under Iraq war, and not a section by itself (violation of POV fork--I think). ED MD 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there should be an NPOV title. As it stood, it was sensationalist. Changed title to "conceptual criticism" to make it more NPOV and bring it more into line with other titles (such as "criticism of execution"). However, I think there may be a place for it as it's own section, as criticism of the "concept" of shock and awe. Haven't quite decided if existing criticism is really opposed to the idea as a whole, or just its execution in the Iraq War.--Auric04 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure

The March, 2003 bombing campaign killed more civilians in Baghdad than in any previous attack.[18] Over 8,000 people in Iraq were killed from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when the bombing campaign was carried out on Baghdad.[19]"

Comment: Statistics on civilian casualties is already in the article. Some people are complaining that criticism is being "scrubbed" from the article. How about reading the article because it is in there!!! ED MD 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded - edited to fix--Auric04 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Stiver is again including more POV. this section has already been extensively debated:

In coverage by mass media before the United States' invasion of Iraq, "Shock and Awe" was often used to mean an indiscriminate "Doomsday" or terror aerial bombardment [18]. Critics of the war compared the plans of the United States to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War,[19] and termed such plans as savagery[2].

Mass media is not World Socialist webpage. The lines "terror aerial bombardment" is not used in those references. The line used is "terror-inducing destructiveness" which does not make it terrorism. Also read the article for its context. Stiver and Starcare seem to enjoy taking things out of context. Alternet.org is a self-published "progressive" opinion webpage. Because of the political aspects of this subject, references should be limited to mainstream news. Once the smoke clears, will properly site the Guardian article instead of Stiver's anti-US, Anti-semetic[24] sentiment. ED MD 21:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ill read that later, and "thanks" for calling me a anti-semite. --Striver 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes are imprecise and don't really reflect the meaning/intent of the article. However, I do think it is reasonable to include these statements - provided the proper caveats are made and quotes are cited properly/in context. I made the follow edit to fix what I thought were quotes lacking important supporting informaiton/misreprentations of the source of the quote/:

"Doomsday" - out of context. Article does not say/imply this was the common meaning

"terror-inducing destructiveness" - misquoted and not properly attributed to critics of the war, as in the article

"bombing campaign destroyed..."- sentence presented as fact; is not properly attributed to an editorial piece

--Auric04 05:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These critiques have been here for 2 days. No responses??? ..other than, "I'll read it later." So much for claiming that I am engaged in a revert war. Its obvious to me that Striver, Starcare, and Publioca are not intrested in presenting an NPOV article. ED MD 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] counter arguments sadly lacking

The last in talk had multiple points of contention to which have not been addressed. Why don;t you try to address these concerns are reach a consensus versus reverts with ridiculous statements that will never pass the test of time. ED MD 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Auric's objections aren't applicable to the version I've been supporting. Furthermore, you just agreed to a mediation statement which assumes the existence (if not the exact wording) of the sections which you have been blanking. Perhaps you should edit instead of blanking. Starcare 18:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

Hello,

I have been watching this conversation over the past few days and, although I have been tempted to jump in and state an opinion, I think that the nature of the dispute is such that formal mediation is necessary, and the best thing I can do is to encourage that. Please sign and agree to the Request for mediation as soon as possible. Thank you. KWH 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All six parties specified have agreed to mediation. Publicola 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We still need Striver, but it's actually very good that almost everyone signed in the first day... KWH 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the mediator decide which dispute tags are appropriate for the article while it is undergoing mediation. For now, I am going to add just a {{POV}} tag without any pointer to a section of talk page. Publicola 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In 24 hours I will replace the deleted dispute tags, NOR and CITE, barring evidence that the article does not violate these policies, which is unlikely. Since an attempt to resolve this was made and failed, I believe this is reasonable and is policy.--Scribner 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scribner's barnstar

		An Award
		Barnstar awarded by Striver to Scribner, Publicola and Starcare for defending NPOV on the Shock and Awe article, when some people wanted to remove all critisism from the article.

This was placed on my user page at 11:48, 3 August 2006 as a passive/aggressive swipe at ED MD, since he was slighted. But I'll keep it here to remind Striver, Publicola and Starcare that my edits are npov. The op/ed sections of the article are coming out. Cite it correctly, or loose it.--Scribner 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is this: can people write something on wikipedia that lasts for a long time. Because in a few months when the "block is lifted somebody will just removed the POV. In the case of Shock and Awe, writing that it means terrorism because the definitions contain "terror" as one of its many descriptors is absolutely retarded. Intellect at that level does not extend past the sixth grade. Just like my fantastic analysis where I prove that shock and awe really means "jarring stupefaction." On a more broader front, inclusion of extremist views such as those presented by Stiver (I already sited his anti-american and anti-semitic edits) and by inclusions of extremist webpages like World Socialist Webpage makes for a really poor page. Maybe we should include the opinion of the KKK in the article as well? (that was sarcasm if you didn't figure it out, as I'm sure somebody will claim it otherwise). Again, my points have been made on the talk page, and nobody who is trying to make the link to terrorism has a legitimate response. As for the criticism, I wrote almost the entire article including the "criticism of execution" section and the "casualties" section. So for those who claim that I am removing ALL criticism, I think they are just showing their ignornance. ED MD 02:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of being anti-America or anti Semitic. Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen are American, so is most people in S9/11T. Jesus (pbuh) is Jewish, so was Moses (pbuh). --Striver 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your words, Striver--Scribner 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) "Ill read that later, and "thanks" for calling me a anti-semite. --Striver 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Dictionary definitions

If a legitimate dictionary and thesarus both say that the words "shock" and "awe" are synonyms of "terror", then no further source is required to include that fact in the article. If you feel differently, please try to find a policy or guideline which agrees with you. I have looked. Nothing in WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:NOR suggests that using such sources is inappropriate in any way. Starcare 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:OR, one of the three fundamental content policies. You are claiming that the fact that shock, awe, and terror are synonyms has some bearing on the relation between the military doctrine of "shock and awe" and terrorism. (Or perhaps you are not; but if not, the point is decidedly irrelevant.) Unless you can provide a source detailing this connection, you are making a "new analysis" of the ideas expressed in the dictionary. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim disallows the presentation of information about synonyms. When other sources support the connection to terrorism, then the dictionary is all you need to show the fact that the words are synonyms. If nobody else was saying that s-a-a was terror, then I might agree with you, but the connection is already established and the dictionary is just further support. Starcare 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming that this fact (that the words are synonyms) has relevance to the section comparing shock and awe and terrorism. What source makes that claim? For instance, has this fact ever appeared in an article about shock and awe? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you Chris, say that the Guardian source supported shock and awe being terrorism "by another name" -- isn't that the definition of a synonym? Publicola 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I said that the Guardian source supports the assertion that the source makes -- which is that some Arabs view shock and awe as terrorism by another name. This has no bearing on the topic of this section, however -- here we are dicsussing whether the dictionary has something to say about shock and awe and terrorism. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris the Guardian Article is an editorial, with no verifiable facts. I've emailed the author, Brian Whitaker at both the Guardian and his website requesting proof of his claims. Here are his email addresses: brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk <brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk> and brian@al-bab.com <brian@al-bab.com>. This article, being an editorial is not a valid cite because it's content can not be verified, per WP:V.--Scribner 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, the information can still be present in the article but should be qualified as the opinion of that columnist -- if he writes for the Guardian I'd assume his perception is worth including. To be honest I am not particularly concerned about the presentation of the information from that article in the current version, as it is a comparatively minor issue. What follows it is the problem -- instead of following it up with the actual arguments presented by actual critics, we get arguments that have been developed by Wikipedia editors for the purposes of writing this article, i.e. original research. Once the original research is excised from the article I'll take up this issue further. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Guardian article is the premise for the argument!--Scribner 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SENSE suggests that the choice to include that content is intended to make a point, not to inform the dear reader of one of many synonyms of these two words. If it were intended only to inform the reader of word synonyms, it could be removed as trivial, as arguably no other articles do this. It appears to be a very brief form of enthymeme. KWH 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there is one source saying that some people think shock and awe is another name for terrorism, and the dictionary agrees. There is no syllogism implied here, it is simply reporting what is written in reliable sources. What is more reliable than a thesarus when it comes to what words are synonyms? Publicola 22:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the mention of the thesaurus synonyms necessary to the claims which the article reproduces? KWH 00:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, the dictionary is not saying that "shock and awe" is another name for terrorism, or you would cite the page where it said that. Instead, you've cited the definitions of "shock" and "awe," and then you've done some original research to make the point you want -- which is in fact totally unsupported by the source in question. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is not

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a thesaurus.
• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

[edit] Verifiability

• Burden of evidence is on the editor.
• Self-published sources (online and paper).

[edit] Recent tags

The following tags, WP:NOR, WP:POV, and WP:V, were placed on the article for the mentioned policy violations.--Scribner 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are not tags, they are policies, and they haven't been violated. All statements are supported by cited sources, balancing the National Defense University sources and thus allowing the multiple points of view required by NPOV. All references are easily verifiable. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicola Reverted two of these tags, without knowledge or disscussion. I'm fresh out of reverts. I'm seeing Islamic contributors violate WP:OWN with this article.--Scribner 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic? I'm agnostic. Publicola 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You too are exhibiting WP:OWN as you just inadvertently admitted to, congratulations. But in a show of good faith, I'll repeat, as long as your material is cited correctly and pertains to the article, I'll support those edits. At this time, that's not the case.--Scribner 23:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not happy with all the left wing 'sources' that are being thrown around here, how hard is it for people to find mainstream sources for what they're saying? If so many people think Shock and Awe is terrorism, you'd think there'd be at least one legit source out there that agrees, since there isn't, we should be moving on--IworkforNASA 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox created for those unhappy with protected state

I have created Shock and awe/sandbox for those who are unhappy with the protected state to edit and show the mediator what they think the article should look like. I am happy with the protected state, but I will be glad to work on the sandbox version, too, if the mediator suggests that might help. Starcare 08:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just dropping by as an outsider, the article looks pretty good to me, I can't see what the fuss is about. Herostratus 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article exceeds all wiki standards, by far. Representative of what one can expect to find of Wikipedia...nominated for feature article.--Scribner 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: WP:LEAD indicates that the lead section should include a summary of the significant controversies. Therefore, I will not be supporting the sandbox version in its current state. Publicola 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is solved by stating, "Among terrorists organizations and armies that embed their military among civilian populations, using their civilians as human shields, civilian casualties have occurred."--Scribner 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to call the comparison to terrorism a significant controversy. Commented at greater length below. Auric04 07:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I went through the sandbox version and researched each claim. I believe I made clear in the edit summaries why certain sources were not acceptable. The statement in the lede graf is not a substantial controversy. In addition, Ullman and Wade are substantially misquoted. KWH 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? 75.35.113.208 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this article is dominated by a clear left wing bias

please fix it

[edit] WP:RS, the use of primary sources, Ullman, and omission of Iraq's use of human shields

• Brian Whitaker's op/ed, "Flags in the dust" is a primary source, and it's usage violates, WP:RS.

• Ullman stated, "We have not seen it; it is not coming.", with regard to the invasion of Iraq. Again, primary source and if considered authoritative enough, then the use of "shock and awe" in Iraq can't be included in the article because Ullman claimed it never happened.

• Omission of Iraq's use of human shields: if there is any mention of civilian casualties whatsoever, then Iraq's use of human shields has to be mentioned.

Note: I've pulled my name from mediation because the sock puppet, User:Publicola showed poor faith. Sock puppet, Publicola made nearly 20 edits and 2 reverts just prior to requesting protection of the article due to edit warring.--Scribner 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you please rejoin the Mediation effort (which hadn't even started yet). See m:The Wrong Version. The only chance for getting this article to the right version is via Mediation. Thank you, KWH 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It think it's a mistake. We may lose one member of our side in the process. Mediation will force a compromise. This will be a protracted mediation. I think Wikipedia should publish this insanity and then be judged for what it is, a good idea that went south due to poor management. I'll decide in the morning.--Scribner 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you just want to quit editing the article altogether, then you are no longer a participant in the edit conflict, so you can just leave some sort of message for the Mediation Committee to that effect (you Agree not to edit the article further and will accept the results of mediation). Just a thought, but do think it over and make the decision you think is best. KWH 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recused from mediation.--Scribner 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on the Current Version

Auric04

Since my efforts to find create a more NPOV were deleted wholesale without comment, I'd like to reraise some of my objections. Apologies if I've already stated this in talk, but I'd want to make points and comments on some of these:

1. Use of title "comparison to terrorism" - Mostly simply, the issue of a comparison to terrorism is obviously incendiary and intended to bias the article towards one political POV. "To some, shock and awe is equivalent to terrorism" is a much broader statement than evidence supports. Specifically, is a single reference explicitly calling shock and awe "terrorism"in all of the sources - the Guardian op-ed, which, in 1 sentence, asserts that some Arabs and Muslims believe it is terror (Xasf found a good source to back this point up, which should be cited instead of the op-ed). This important qualifier is completely ignored. Thus, the comparison between "shock and awe" and "terrorism" seems to arise from a single sentence in a single op-ed and is raised to the status of an important, widespread view by its use as a title - far beyond what the sources can justify (that it is a view held by some generally radical Arabs and Muslims).

2. Inclusion of "comparison to terrorism" in the summary - A case was made for insertion under WP:LEAD, but I have yet to see strong evidence that this is a serious, widespread issue that is being debated, and worthy of inclusion in the intro. Support for raising this to the status of a "major controversy" comes from a single paragraph within a Guardian op-ed, a Counterpunch op-ed, and the World Socialist Web. By comparison, I believe far more has been written criticizing the life of Che Guevara than has been comparing "shock and awe" to "terrorism". Yet the article on him contains no mention of this criticism in the lead.

3. In the article, it states:

However, the doctrine's authors admit that it includes instilling terror in the targets -- as Ullman and Wade write, "the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm."

This is tantamount to putting words in Ullman and Wade's mouth. My guess is they might dispute characterizing their words as "instilling terror", but since we don't know, we should avoid editorializing on their comments, per WP:NOR, and stick to what they actually said.

4. The synonym reference - this is a factoid that has no relevance to explaining shock and awe. I thought it had already been agreed that this was irrelevant, as it disappeared prior to Publica's involvement. To me, this seems about as relevant as noting in an article on Personal Digital Assistants that the acronym "PDA" also means Public Display of Affection.

5. Repetation of the fact that 8,000 Iraqi's were killed - redundant, as the previous section just mentioned that. Only point seems to be inclusion for shock value

6. In the article, it states:

The bombing campaign destroyed Iraq's essential civilian infrastructures of electrical power, communications, water, sewers, schools, healthcare facilities, and its economy.[5]

The source for this statement is an op-ed. I don't object to this being included per se, but if it is, this statement should be sourced to a credible news report or qualified as an opinion (in this case, of someone quite critical of the war)

7. Para beginning "Ullman and Wade write that targeting options..." seems to WP:NOR (see "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position") by not explicitly linking the Ullman/Wade quote with terrorism (as there does not appear to be a source that does this), but by obviously inviting the user to make this link themselves by including the quote in the section "Comparisons to terrorism". If inclusion of these quotes are warranted, they belong in the "Doctrine" section.

My apologies that this is so long, but I believe these are all important flaws in the current version that need to be addressed. Auric04 07:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Auric04 - I wonder if you would look at my edit summaries on the sandbox version. We have the same view on most of the sources, but I did some research to determine where the claims from these sources were misquoted or non-acceptable. Your #3 for instance - if Ullman and Wade are taken in context, they actually say "While there are surely humanitarian considerations that cannot or should not be ignored, the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm." It's clear to me that as military theorists, they are stating that while the doctrine has potential to win a conflict, these are moral questions which the leadership who choose to use the doctrine must consider, which is pretty much their position throughout the work. To read the article as it stands, one might think that the authors advocated directly targetting civilians. KWH 13:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All these points are completely true. The sad aspect is that much of wikipedia is taken over by extremists from a liberal perspective. Reviewing Hamas and Hezbollah there are minimal references to terrorism since pro-islam editors like Striver remove them and then place anti-american and anti-semitic edits as I have documented in previous edits. I find it funny that at any attempt, these people will try and throw the terrorism label on the US. Here is a list of edits that Stiver is engaged in:

9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium --trying to prove that the US was at fault for 9/11

TerrorStorm --again all these terrorist attacks were planed by the governments who were targeted

Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict --self-explanatory

I seem to be wasting too much time with these edits. Finally, even after all the issues presented here about sources and content, after the "protection" was instituted, they have disappeared from commenting. My suspicion is that they will continue with POV inclusion even after the mediation. I've never done a mediation before, but i hope it actually follow the rules set forth by wikipedia. Pseudotumor 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone do an analysis of Starcare? He has really only edited Shock and Awe. Seems to me that he is a sockpuppet??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudotumor (talk • contribs)

[edit] WP:V verifiability problems

• Whitaker, B. (March 24, 2003) "Flags in the dust" Guardian Unlimited
  1. Primary source, op-ed. Fails verifiability.
  2. Emailed author twice, once on his website and once at the Guardian--no response.
  3. Note: Use in this article as premise for argument, argument fails per rules of logic.

• Lindorff, D. (September 5, 2003) "Courage and the Democrats" CounterPunch
  1. Self published, no peer review. Fails verifiability.

• Henry Michaels, "US plans 'shock and awe' blitzkrieg in Iraq", World Socialist Web Site
  1. World Socialist Web Site. Fails verifiability.

• Chernus, I. (January 27, 2003) "Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?" Common Dreams News Center
  1. Self published, no peer review. Fails verifiability.

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a thesaurus.

• YouTube video possible copyright violations, and unverifiable.

---

Removing all material referenced to these sources.--Scribner 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Don't know what happened to the references section, but I can't revert so I can't change it at this time.--Scribner 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:V? In what way do those sources "fail verifiability"? Please be specific, because my understanding is that they are all verifiability -- just click on the links. You don't need to be able to email an author to have verifiable -- otherwise all the dead authors wouldn't be verifiable. Are you actually trying to talk about WP:RS? RG06 16:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and awe/sandbox

Since it appears that pretty much all of the Wikipedia dispute resolution venues are backlogged (or even nearly inactive) it appears that we will have to work out this dispute ourselves. I have proposed, by way of an edit, the version which was constructed at Shock and awe/sandbox. I left full edit summaries in the history of Shock and awe/sandbox if you have any questions about the various changes. I hope that we can use this as a new starting point and propose additions to this version, which may include critical claims if they meet all Wikipedia policies (and are generally in harmony with Wikipedia guidelines).

What has been removed are claims which were either misrepresented, from unreliable sources, or otherwise had NPOV problems. I believe that these changes at minimum are necessary to meet Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and reliable sources, among others. Please also note that while I may not agree with ED MD, Scribner, or others on everything, I do agree on sourcing in general. (although I believe that above at #WP:V verifiability problems, Scribner meant to say that these sources fail WP:RS)

I hope that everyone involved will be certain to err on the side of civility - prejudging the motivations or others or being sarcastic or (in general) aggressive only prolongs and escalates conflict. Thanks, KWH 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD about representing the controversies instead of burying them. Also, the sandbox version doesn't explain clearly that the doctrine's authors advocate terroristic use of force. RG06 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RG06 looks an awful lot like a sock puppet to me - he was created about 5 mins before his first edit, and is using terminology that is strongly biased towards one side of this disagreement. Please don't do this - since the editors won't help resolve this problem, let's be civil and work something out ourselves.--Auric04 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the sandbox version, because I feel it was the clostest thing to a compromise yet written. However, it seems to be substantially lacking in some of the criticism that was found in the old version, which Starcare et. al. wanted to include. To resolve this dispute, it seems to me that some/much of this material should be reinserted. So to those that feel the current version lacks criticism, you should add it. However, I would suggest a few caveats.

1. Please keep references out of the header - the header is a debate unto itself, but I don't think this rises to the level of "major controversy" per WP:LEAD. See above.

2. Please avoid wholesale reverts - if we keep doing that, we'll never progress anywhere. The sandbox seems as good a place to start as any to me, so let's work from that.

3. If a piece of information comes from an op-ed or represents an opinion, please state so CLEARLY. I'm mostly thinking of the Arab view of S+A as "terrorism" - this view may merit inclusion, but you should note the source.

--Auric04 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure

Auric04 - the claims that you re-added are already represented in the second section of the "sandbox version", with appropriate context, as shown below. If we had verifiable criticism of these points of doctrine, then they could be cited also as counterpoints. I'll let you or someone else decide to revert your edit, but having both of these in is redundant. KWH 01:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In Context

Without Context

Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of Rapid Dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure"[5] and in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[6] Using as example a theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, the authors claimed that "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[7] Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."[8]

Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure As Ullman and Wade write, "the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm."[9] And, "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[10] And, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[11] Ullman has stated, "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water."[8]

Is "in context" supposed to be less biased than "without context"? Because as I read them, there's not much difference. What exactly is this extra context supposed to say? 75.35.115.17 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to terrorism

Although it was removed from the sandbox version by another editor, the below is what remained of the "Comparison to terrorism" section after I edited it down to properly represented and verifiable claims. If there are additional verifiable claims of comparison to terrorism found, then they could be added to this section and possibly flesh it out. Please pay particular attention to the statement at WP:NPOV#A simple formulation - "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. … The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name." KWH 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to The Guardian correspondent Brian Whitaker in 2003, "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11."^[12] Ullman and Wade wrote, "While there are surely humanitarian considerations that cannot or should not be ignored, the ability to Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate, and disarm."^[13]

KWH - thanks for the correction. Seems I browsed through a little too quickly last time - the sandbox does, indeed, already have what I'd re-added. It also has earlier criticisms people wanted to include with appropriate context, so it seems complete to me. I've reverted it to the sandbox version. Hopefully this will stand as a good compromise. Auric04 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply because Ullman and Wade write that " Shock and Awe ultimately rests in the ability to frighten, scare, intimidate" does not mean it is terrorism. It is orignal research to make that jump. A bank robber may make threatening gestures to "frighten, scare, intimidate" but that does not make him a terrorist in the sense of the word used in common discourse. Pseudotumor 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone is making that claim - no one is stating shock and awe equals terrorism. The reference to the Guardian and Moqtada al-Sadr states SOME in the Arab and Muslim world belive S+A to be terrorism. In the section you removed (and which I just reinserted), this is well quoted and clearly qualified. Given the reader now knows EXACTLY who made this claim, they may judge its veracity for themselves. Saying some people think S+A is terrorism is legitimate, as long as we know is saying it. And since we are discussing S+A's application, this does seem relevant - after all, S+A is all about how the use of force is perceived. Additionaly, in light of the current debate here, including this passage adds a view which gives depth to a reader's understanding of S+A (as it was implemented) and seems a resonable compromise. As for the dictionary definitions and the reference to this issue in the lead, I still agree those do not belong in the article. Auric04 07:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Auric, I can live with the addition that you added back. Pseudotumor 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Auric04 -- why do you think that the comparison to terrorism is not a "significant" controversy? At one point above you say "explained at greater length below" and then the next time you mention it you say "see above". There are plenty of sources making the comparison. Do you have any which actually agree with your position that the controversy isn't significant? Publicola 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can find one source: the Guardian editorial. Care to point out the others? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend:

• Targeting civilians for the sake of achieving political or military goals constitutes terrorism. Rather than denounce the idea that America should engage in state terrorism on a massive scale, President Bush responded enthusiastically to the concept of "Shock and Awe" when it was introduced to him by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in the lead up to the war [Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack, Simon and Schuster, 2004, p. 102.] [25]
• Let's be clear about what "Shock and Awe" means. It means terrorism. [26]
• The impact of the "shock and awe" strategy is meant to be on hearts and minds: to destroy the enemy's will, and mental and psychological ability to resist. But bombing's ability to terrorize - the sudden explosive death from the sky without warning - was one of the first effects to be observed.... [27]
• Targeting civilians is still terrorism, whether undertaken for the best of motives or the worst. [28]
• Barring a few exceptions (mainly on the internet) there was, mid-week, no other news because the U.S. and British media does not care for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people, the hospitals crowded with the victims of "precision bombing" and the unfolding humanitarian crisis.... The disregard that the U.S. has shown to the principles that have guided international relations for more than half a century will stir a cauldron that will breed hundreds of Osamas. These will be the wages of gunboat diplomacy. [29]
• Plus, there's the Al-Sadr quote which made it in to the article already.

That's just from the first few pagest of search results. Publicola 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never been against including the comments of critics on this issue. The only thing I've complained about is the use of sources to say things that they clearly do not mean, for instance the current implication that the developers of shock and awe are conceding that it is terrorism. You, Starcare, and Striver have consistently supported the misuse of sources -- characterizing opinion as fact and attributing to sources arguments that they do not support. To misuse sources in this fashion is dishonest. Why you have been doing it, given the availability of actual critical sources to support the assertions you want to include, is a mystery. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my unsourced references to "see above". Basically, I felt the arguments on this issue had already been expounded at length earlier in the talk page, and I didn't want to repeat it all again. To address the quesiton of "significant" controversy: I believe the burden of proof for "significant" controversy lies on you, Publicola, not me. All controversies start as insignificant, and then rise to significance - one cannot, and would not, address all insignificant controversies because they are, by definition, insignificant. The insignificance of a controversy is proved by its very lack of discussion, so it would be hard to give you evidence of this. Once it becomes significant, people on all sides of the issue will believe it worthwhile to argue. Until then, only those with an interest in SEEING this controversy become significant will talk about it. You really want to convince me that this "terrorism" issue is significant? Find me a major figure that takes time to explicity address and refute the comparison between Shock and Awe and terrorism. So far, I have not seen a news article (not an op-ed) from a mainstream paper that devotes real space to this issue (The Guardian is major, but the line is from an op-ed and is only one sentence). This indicates to me that mainstream news editors and the people who buy their papers do not believe this is an issue worth addressing. Hence, it fails to rise to the level of major controversy.

On the examples you gave:

1. The first is a misrepresented paraphrase from Woodward (s. 1 is editorial by the piece's author, s. 2 may be a paraphrase, not is not a quote, cited to Woodward). Note this is by the same author as the 4th souce

2. The second is self-published blog post with about a dozen sentences, half of which is a quote

3. The third is from the SF Chronicle, but is misrepresented - the whole quote reads "But bombing's ability to terrorize - the sudden explosive death from the sky without warning - was one of the first effects to be observed, noted in 13th century China." This is a general comment on aerial bombing, not S+A in specific, so does not belong here

4.The fourth is a post on Christian Peacemaker Teams, which is hardly mainstream media

5. The fifth says nothing about terrorism in it, only the humanitarian problems (there is a big difference).

Googling "shock awe terrorism" didn't yield me any sources without problems like the post above. I'm sorry, Publicola, but I stll don't think any of these references support this issue as a "significant" controversy. Auric04 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary definitions aren't OR

Chris Parham has taken to deleting the dictionary definitions of the words "shock" and "awe" as "OR". On what grounds, actually mentioned in WP:OR are these being objected to? The fact is that when you are discussing the semantic equivalence of different terms, the dictionary is about the most reliable of all reference sources. It's not "original," and it is as reliable as sources can get. Publicola 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's nonsense, which is why no published source has suggested that shock and awe is related to terrorism because the terms "shock" and "awe" are synonymous with "terror." Similarly, nobody claims that terrorism and electrocution are similar, despite the fact that "terror" and "shock" are synonyms, or that Europe is evil because both start with "E". More significantly, this is original research because you are citing the source as evidence for an implication that the source clearly does not support. You are taking the source, and then extrapolating that the dictionary's discussions of "shock," "awe," and "terror" have some bearing on the concepts of "Shock and Awe" and "terrorism." Not only do you claim that this source, which never mentions any of the topics discussed in this article, is relevant to these topics, you imply that it supports the assertion that shock and awe is similar to terrorism. One would assume, however, that if the dictionary had something to say about Shock and Awe, it would go to the trouble of mentioning the topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From the older parts of the discussion page, I thought this issue had been laid to rest. However, since the discussion seems to be starting again, I'll jump in. I think Chris states it pretty well - the dictionary definitions of shock and awe are totally irrelevant here. Both words have numerous synonyms - "awe" includes "admiration and reverence", and shock includes "stupor" and "jolt". The fact that you chose to highlight a SINGLE synonym illustrates that you're trying to make a very specific point, one which is biased. You're trying to lead the readers to a conclusion in a way that is not consistent with objective presentation of material. If people want to know synonyms, they can look it up on a thesaurus. Even if we assume this "dictionary" definition is valid, the links seems to have been cherry picked and interpreted to make this point. "Shock" links to dictionary.com; "awe" links to thesuarus.com. The entry for "awe" on dictionary.com does not contain the word "terror"; neither does the entry for "shock" on thesaurus.com. I find it hard to believe the choice of links was made for any reason other than to introduce bias. It seems quite clear to me that while the definitions themselves are not OR, their presention and inclusion at that particular point within this particular articles involves creative interpretation and invites a non-objective viewpoint. As such, they shold be excluded.Auric04 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News Reporters

I thought it was funny when reporters didn't know how to describe it. When a correspondent was asked all they could say was "it was shocking and awesome" or "I was shocked and awed" or the transposed "I was awestruck, it was so shocking". Maybe that should be in the article. LOL.

[edit] Inclusion

I didn't add this to the main page due to a lack of knowledge regarding popular consistentancel

The addition is of the GBU-43 Massive Ordnsnce Air Bomb and BLU-82 Daisy cutter both used in the 'shock and awe' program of the gulf war.

Personally, I would change it to reflect as much but would like some opinions beforehand.

Edit: Does anyone know if audible tactics were used in like the ones used in the U.S. embassy in Panama wee used at any point?

[edit] The military operation was not named "shock and awe"

The Military Operation was Operation Iraqi Freedom, "Shock and Awe" is a just a name given to the tactics used during the initial phase of the operation.