Talk:State terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main discussion forum for this series of articles is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive

Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] Major change

I have created a list List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state

to reduce this article edit wars, please revert it if the consensus is to have it all here. My apologies if people are pissed off :-(((RaveenS 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

i already stated my opinion that i would even go the step further and delete the list, but i support this move. this way editing can concentrate on actually improving the definition. --trueblood 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually oppose giving this topic its own article, for the reason that the article has not been created because the subject, on its own merits, deserves a separate article, but merely because doing so solves an editing headache for another article, namely State terrorism. I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of the list even as a subsection of State terrorism: a good many examples are tendentious, giving no further insight into the definition of the term, but merely afford space to writers with axes to grind. That said, a few well-chosen illustrative examples, insofar as they help illuminate the definition of State terrorism, are obviously welcome. Obviously, the examples will be loudly disputed, but so it goes.
Rrburke 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

an illusion to think to have a short list of well-chosen examples. how is it going to be different from now? if you have examples, sooner or later someone will come along, feel strongly about some act of state terrorism and add it, and before long we back with the long list and the edit wars. --trueblood 11:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true, but no truer than it is for a great variety of articles on contentious topics, and they seem somehow to manage. People can resolve that additional examples will be reverted unless generally accepted to be better than those already included. Reversion wars have never really killed anyone anyway.
--Rrburke 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing this article

The best way to keep individual countries state terrorism from confusing the intent of the article, I propose that we create individual articles on each country such as State terrorism in Sudan, State terrorism in Sri Lanka.... please discuss the merits it. Then this whole article can be a high level article dealing with what state terorism is and link to each countries culpabilitiesHuracane 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huracane, I think this is a good idea, otherwise this article is going to become quite unwieldy and it is hard to keep discussions organized as well since there are so many differing threads going on.--Realstarslayer 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
One way to organize this article is define state terrorism and list of types of state terrorist actions such as ethnic cleaninzing, massacres, disappearances, torture. and then link to individual countries state terrorist practices ?RaveenS 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I have moved Syria to Sri Lanka to appropriate sectionsRaveenS

How about a Category:State terrorism by country ? That will organize this even better.IMHOHuracane 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilians?

The previous version does not say that the target is the civilian population. This is crucial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.192.126 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] playground

from just scanning through the heated discussion it seems to me that this article could benefit from taking all the examples out.

Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary. it's clear from the definition that it always depends on your politics if you call an act of agression state terrorism or something else, this article will always be a playground for edit warriors. i think wikipedia should not be the place for this kind of political discusison (whether the us or israel are commiting acts of state terrorism) and the article would greatly improved by being pruned down to a good definition. trueblood 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Protest against removal Of USA vs Cuba

The fact that Cuban population has been suffering terrorism attacks since decades has been well known in all the World, including informed Americans (facts covered by European and Latin American news agencies). The allegation that these acts were performed by US sponsored agents was also known and only lacked the official confirmation from US side. This confirmation just came recently with the declassification of some documents from the CIA and the FBI. Perhaps the grammar was not good (I'm not a native English speaker) or the sources not well cited, but the full removal of a section with facts well known outside USA is really disaponting about the seriousness and maturity of the Wikipedia.

By the way, I am not a Cuban, I am a Mexican and I use to write Science and Computing History articles at the Spanish edition of the Wikipedia. --Asierra 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The US section is constantly vandalised by unquestioningly pro-US wikipedians who can see no wrong in their countries actions. I have not the time to engage in a revert war with these people.GiollaUidir 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to the references to Posada Carriles and Bosch in connection with the 1976 attack on Cubana de Aviación, I removed that section once, not because I am "pro-American" or refuse to believe that the United States would sponsor terrorism, but because all that was mentioned in this section was that the United States has refused to extradite Posada Carriles, and such a refusal does not seem to me in itself to constitute an example of "state terrorism". As for the attack itself, while there is no doubt that Posada Carriles and Bosch had long-standing connections with elements in the U.S. government, in order for the attack on Cubana de Aviación to be an example of "state terrorism," it would be necessary to put forward some evidence that the United States had somehow sponsored or encouraged this particular act, not merely that it did business with criminal thugs who also engaged in acts of terrorism. I have no difficulty calling Posada Carriles and Bosch terrorists and I agree that the refusal to extradite is hypocritical, but unless some evidence is brought forward of a state's encouragement or support of acts of terrorism, I don't believe the example meets the definition. I would encourage you if you wish to restore this section to locate evidence of particular acts of terrorism promoted by the United States.
Rrburke 20:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is it - State Terrorism?

Could anybody explain in plain English?

For example, speaking on the first item - Albania:

Enver Hoxha's dictatorship was one of the most oppressive and isolationist in the world. - true

Religious practice was prohibited through imprisonment, and no political dissent was allowed. - true

It has been estimated that up to one third of Albanians were interrogated by his regime's secret police at one time or another. - may be

Sure, Enver Hoxha was a bad guy, and Albanian regime was a bad regime. But why it was the terrorist state?

... And so on. Just read every item in the list of terrorist states. --HenryS 05:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end"

The article quotes Baltasar Garzón:

"State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance."

Here are 3 examples from the last 100 years which fit this description:

  • Stalin and the purges
  • Idi Amin and his time as "King of Scotland" in Uganda.
  • Pakistan Government during and before the 1973 Bangladesh War
  • (The bad, mad and ruthless) But there are lots of other cases of state terrorism eg Third Reich to name another obvious one. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the definition by Baltasar Garzón (and, I think, with the term itself) is that virtually every act of any government could be named the State Terrorism, according the quote. It depepends of Point Of View only. Is there any meaningful definition?

--HenryS 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC) i agree, the problem with this article is that it treats the term as if it were a very clear term that could be used in an objective way. i don't think that we are going to find a meaningful definition. that's why i proposed to delete the whole list of acts labelled as state terrorism, since such a list can never be free of pov. maybe we could rather have a few examples were the term was used in general discussion, this list could be clearly pov and it should be stated, that it's purpose is to illustrate how the term was/is used. trueblood 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and currently I consider the term "State terrorism" as a nonesense. So, before asking to delete the whole article, I try to find out if there is a meaningful definition of the term. According alleged Baltasar Garzón's definition, every state is the Terrorist State. Period. --HenryS 14:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i don't know about deleting the whole article, but just leave it with some kind of definition, that states that it is a highly controversial term. but there are a lot of people that seem to like this article because it is a platform to fight it out if a certain us american, israelian, cuban etc action is to be considered state terrorism or not. i don't know how to go about. trueblood 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the term State terrorism is nothing but propaganda. Most people agree, that terrorism is evil, so propagandists use the term State terrorism against the states they dislike. I'm still waiting if anybody could explain difference between regular state violence and state terrorism. --HenryS 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

so having stated this several times, what do you propose trueblood 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry for bulging in like this, but controversial and vague as the term may be, it is an existing term, used by far more people than Mr Garzon. A google search for "state terrorism -wikipedia" brings up 98 million hits. So any talk of proposing the article for deletion is in my opinion out of the question. I think that under the terms of NPOV the best course to take would be:
  • In the opening paragraph, describe the term. Describe the different interpretations authoritative sources give to the term. Mr Garzon could be used as one of these.
  • For each one of the instances described in the article as state terrorism, editors must say who described the specific incident as state terrorism, with proper citations.
For example:
In June 2004, Israel assaulted Rafah, Gaza. As a result about 60 Palestinians, including many civilians and children were killed. PM of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan described this as state terrorism (source: The Guardian).
Note the important aspects of the above paragraph:
  1. The characterization is not given because the wikipedian (in this case, me) thinks it applies, but rather because someone else applied it.
  2. The characterization was applied by someone notable (Turkey's PM).
  3. The characterization is sourced from a respected newspaper (The Guardian).
I believe that if every instance referenced in the article as state terrorism was built in a similar manner, the article would be pretty NPOV. Thoughts? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Good point
The Guardian is respected source, so I believe that Mr. Erdogan said that.
Mr. Erdogan is highly respected Turkey's PM
But:
He is a politician, not scholar, so as a politician he may and he will use the controversal definitions and even coin them. Just to reach his political goals.
So until we have any rational definition, which shows the diference between any military or police actions by state and the acts of State Terrorism, it is clear for me, that the term State Terrorism is nothing but propaganda. I would not object if the article would start with words
State Terrorism - the term used in propaganda, which describes some violent acts by a state. What states and/or acts are considered terroristic depends on POV
After that statement one could place any idea with his/her POV.
--HenryS 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Let me begin by quoting you, phpbb-style:
"He is a politician, not scholar, so as a politician he may and he will use the controversal definitions and even coin them. Just to reach his political goals."
I daresay that you seem to misunderstand an important aspect of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Let me quote a phrase from it:
"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves"
It is a fact that Mr Erdogan used the term. Our job is not to say why he did it, or what were his motives, or political outlook that drove him to do it or even to infer that ourselves. It would be part of our job to report such things, if someone else, eg a political commentator, made this analysis. Mr Erdogan, or Mr Garzon have every right to express their views, even if it is completely for propagandistic reasons. And any wikipedian can report those news (properly cited of course). It is Wikipedia policy to leave it to the reader to decide for themselves if these opinions are propaganda or not.
I hate to bring up the most worn out argument in the history of the internet, but for example, on Wikipedia we do report the Nazi opinions regarding Jewish people. These are clearly nothing more than the worst kind of propaganda, but it is a fact that an (once) existing political entity expressed them. Wikipedia does not endorse these opinions. Actually Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse anything. But Wikipedia reports them.
We as wikipedians, are not here to present our opinion of what State Terrorism is. We are here to report that politicians, commentators, reporters, writers, political entities etc have used the term to describe a range of situations.
--Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

hey, this is what i had in mind only you put it more eloquently, rather than a list of instances of state terrorism we would have a list of examples of usage of the term state terrorism. but there seem to be a lot of people who are very fond of this list. it seems a bit bold to just delete the whole list, that would surly start an edit war. --trueblood 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This could be solved wiki-style, with a straw poll. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter how do you name it State Terrorism or State Violence. The point is that you must provide reliable sources for the term. --HenryS 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am really tied. That is Wikipedia official policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise
in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with 
academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: 
these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.  
In general, college textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. 
High school and middle school textbooks, however, do not try to be authoritative 
and they are subject to political approval.

What postgraduate degree has Mr. Erdogan? What academic institution is he affiliated with? Why is he allowed to coin definition for encyclopedia?

My other question is, who are we? Reporters or encyclopedians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryS (talk • contribs)

We are not reporters. Reporters can write about things they witnessed themselves. They can write about things someone else witnessed , but has never told anyone before. We can only write about things someone else has already written about. See WP:NOR.
Now, as for the postgraduate degrees. Mr Erdogan could have majored in rocket science, we couldn't care less. We are not referring to him for his expertise or his degrees. Actually we are just referring to what he said, to his opinion. We do not expect any scientific analysis or absolute truth from him. But on this article we are trying to demonstrate how the term is used. And one of its uses is political, by politicians who may have majored in rocket science, accounting or nothing at all.
Of course if one could provide an academic resource for term, that would be of much greater importance than what Mr Erdogan said, and should take up more space in the article. But that is quite a different sotry. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well.
Before talking we have to undersdand what we are talking about. Right?
If we are talking about the "State Terrorism" we have to understand what is the "State Terrorism".
Hence, there should be a definition. Right?
Please, show me one which is reliable according Wikipedia Standards (Mr. Erdogan is not authorative, accordind standards)
BTW. That was me, who wrote the unsigned comment above. (I was tied). But how could you recognise me?--HenryS 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

please reread the argument that was made, the proposal was that since it is a rather vague term, that there would be a definition that also states that it depends on the speakers political standing would he defines as state terrorism. the examples are not supposed to be npov, they will be very pov. they are only to illustrate the fact the state terrorism is not a term that has a clear and scientific definition. i feel like the same argument gets repeated other and other again here.--trueblood 18:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently took a course on terrorism and governmental responses to terrorist acts, and we had several discussions on this very topic. The professor iterated that some peoples and governments felt that there was such a thing as "state terrorism", as exampled in the article. However, he also made it clear many in the international community felt that there is no such thing as state terrorism per se, rather "terrorism" is carried out by rogue agents and non-state actors, and that state violence or state-sponsored violence upon another state is an act of war, and therfore, the examples in the article of torture, etc. would fall under "state-sponsored terror", if the perpetrators are backed or supported by a nation's government. These acts of torture would be classified as war crmes, rather than "state terror", or crimes against humanity, etc. if members of the government or members directly controlled by the government (such as military)perform these acts. No counter-point is really addressed in this article; and I believe that i is at least worth addressing that some in the international community feel differently, or at least address that this idea is not held in consensus of thinkers. I will help discourse, and retrieve some of the texts we used in class, and a list of articles and papers cited by the professor as soon as possible. [that is not to say that "terrorist-states" do not exist, (such as Stalinist Russia, brought up in earlier discussions,) but rather that "state on state terrorism" would fall under the realms of "an act of war"] -Evan 05 July 2006

"State Terrorism" is those systemic and spontaneous acts perpetrated by a State against a defined (largely civilian) population that if done or attempted by an individual or non state organisation would be otherwise labeled as terrorist acts by the US Government (as The world leader" in "The War Against Terrorism"). Linking the definition of "State Terrorism" to a widely accepted definition of "individual and non-state terrorism" avoids some of the hypocrisy implicit in the misuse of the terrorist label in propaganda. Labeling the phrase "State Terrorism" as merely propaganda ignores and diminishes the fear and suffering experienced recipients of acts of terror. One may note that most terrorist acts perpetrated by individuals and non-state organisations appear, to be in direct response to acts of "State Terrorism", or insufferable state opression and might in previous centuries be described as revolutionary, or guerilla warfare. jw 31july 2006

I do not see how this is a controversial term. It is political plain and simple to exclude it and that terrorism is something only done by individuals or groups. If country X sends, hires, or arms someone to go blow up a dam in country Y or kill some villagers, if not war crimes destroying civilian infrastructure during an officially declared and legal war, then it is terrorism carried out by state X, i.e. state terrorism. Not that difficult to explain. One could go to church or humanitarian groups for hundreds or thousands of examples state terrorism rather than state sources with definitions of terrorism as defined by the state or state actors including those that represent states at international bodies, leaving themselves out of the bad light. The afore mentioned church or humanitarian groups or even individuals should be the ones defining state terrorism, not states themselves or groups of states who obviously have an interest in down playing such acts or definitions. SupaSnazzedF 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] state violence

i don't see the necessity of this merge with state violence, which is just a stub anyway. if there are no arguments brought forth the merger box should go. --trueblood 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The entries for StateViolence and StateTerrorism should be different pages. State Violence might include:

 Use of death penalty 
 Aggression against other countries (Illegal Wars)
 Repression of ones people (Polpot, China's culture revolution, Mugabe, etc...)
 Police brutality

[edit] Methods slant

As a researcher, writer, and someone who tries to use a little common sense, I think it unabashadly biased to only list Hamdi v. Rumsfeld as THE example of state terrorism. This is ludicrous hypocracy, for a number of reasons, designed to make the United States look bad--plain and simple.

1. There is no legal discussion on his status. Although one can go to the article, alone it leaves a gravely mistaken impression. The way it is written implies he was simply a citizen of the US who was thrown in jail, not charged, and had to petition for habeus corpus. In fact, he was caught with a group of Taliban on foreign soil (presents legal issues), was thought to be fighting with them against a UN-sanctioned multilateral operation (again presents questions), and was not immediately identified as a US citizen.

2. Here, the courts worked and acted as a check on presidential authority. Does this really sound like State terrorism? Did the high court of the Soviet Union declare illegal Stalin's murder of 40 million people? Did the indepenent judiciary shoot down China's imprisonement, torture, and execution of political dissidents, writers, Wikipedians, journalists, and democracy advocates? Has the UN or court system in Sudan done anything to stop the Khartoum-supported militias that have killed over 1 million in Darfur? In this case, the US system worked for Hamdi--yet somehow the author has managed to twist it into anti-American propoganda.


Some people may view the US actions as State terrorism--however ridiculous that might be--however, we need to look at it in context. Doing so should make you laugh at this citation. Even the author supports my ideas--he cites an Amnesty Int. report on torture. Despite the fact that there are 82 countries that torture (according to AI), his example of State terrorism is a successful lawsuit by a US citizen caught fighting with the enemy to be brought into the US legal system and stand a citizen's trial. Does the the US system sound like terrorism, considering he was allowed to petition the courts, much less win?

Based on these observations, I'm simply taking all the references out--they can be biased and lend nothing to the definition. If anyone adds this one back, I'll simply try to make a fair and representative display by citing courts cases, executions, torture, wrongful imprisonement, etc, etc in every other country, including Western Europe. Would love to hear discussion...

[edit] Original research

This article carries no inline citations and seems to comprise largely of original research, Therefore I have tagged it. Whatsmore, the fast and loose interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:V on this article is causing numerous problems on articles throughout wikipedia. I have come across three articles/afd's etc only today where users are pointing to this article as a source for keeping their own sections on various matters.--Zleitzen 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defn

I think that the defn rather than state violence against civilians, should limit it to violence in the furtherence of politcal ends, preferably violence designed to create social climate to support those ends. Possibly the violence isn't even the key part of terrorism. See wikt:terrorism. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39 23 November 2006 (GMT). (Note:"state terrorism" -wikipedia only gets 677,000 hits unlike the search above.)

[edit] Minor Change, but not

I corrected the titled of the Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. book. Listed was only the subtitle 'The Political Economy of Human Rights: Vol. 1.' Since it was referring to volume 1 I added the full title. If the reference was to both volumes I might almost see the reasoning to have displayed only this subtitle which both volumes belong to. However if both books were listed why not display the entire title of both. It did not make sense to not display the full title in either case. Was it a POV? --NonSuper2Lov 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The article has almost no sources and seems to someone personal opinons regarding what "state terrorism" is.Ultramarine 16:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the lead speaks for itself, "State terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition". --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Do people intend to add in a researched version of Acts labelled as state terrorism, sorted by state to replace what was removed from it? If not, then I think the section header should be removed and ther list be included under the See also heading. I didn't include a reference beyond the OED for the bit on the invention of terrorism during the French Revolution, but I felt a sentence of explanation of what happened was needed for readers not up on their French history. If someone wants to track down a reference, then please do. The wiki articles on revolutionary France don't have sufficient inline referencing for me to pick out a source.--Peter cohen 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of possible deletion of Category:State terrorism

The category State terrorism is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in that category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at that category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

Cgingold 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources regarding Israel

I've checked some of the recently entered sources regarding Israel.

This source[1] does not directly state that Israel engages in State terrorism. Plus, it's a very marginal rather than reliable source.

This source[2] consists of an op-ed piece in Pravda. Not a reliable source of information, nor is this columnist significant.

This Amnesty report on Israel does not even use the word 'terror' so it does not support that proposed text.[3] Same problem with this article about the UN.[4]

This source was inaccessible.[5]

This BBC coverage, of Amnesty's views, also does not use the word terror or terrorist state. Amnesty concerns with 'war crimes' is not the same as state terror. [6] [7]

For these reasons, the following statement is not supported by any reliable sources: "Political commentators and several government officials[4][5] have also deemed the state of Israel, a terrorist state [6][7] due their acts of violence against the Palestinian people[8][9], and more recently in the 2006 Lebanon War[10][11]."

I will remove the footnotes, which are used in an inaccurate manner, and tag the sentence. Then next step would be to delete the statement because it lacks adequate referencing. Please do not revert but, instead, discuss the issue here. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

During my scan through Google's first 100 references each to "human rights watch"+Israel+"state terrorism" and the equivalent for amnesty, I did notice that Arab and Islamic leaders, including Western-inclined ones such as Mubarak, did make the accusation. I think I saw an HRA report on Iran quoting an Iranian government response to the USA's accusation against Iran in return accusing Israel. It is also hardly surprising if Western radicals such as Finkelstein, Pilger or Chomsky would make similar accusations. I think I did spot at least one doing so. However, I think the latter would be best described as "some" commentators as the bulk of Middle East commentators in the "free" world, don't seem to make such accusations.
Another point raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is that the lead should be a summary and material should be discussed mainly in the article body. This also applies to the accusations against Iran.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review requested

Dear all. A peer review has been requested for the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Your comments on how best to improve it would be appreciated. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent removal by Ultramarine

I"m not sure why the reference to Chomsky's analysis within the conceptual framework of State Terrorism was removed. It was not only well referenced but a pivitol point. Moreover, Chomsky is a pioneer on state terorology. I will restore this.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Utrramarine just blanked that sourced section again, that two editors worked on, which adds relevant information about this article's topic. His rationale is that there are other article for it. Fine. But that is no excuse to delete it here, where it does fit. If it also fits elsewhere, then lets put that information there, too. I hope someone reverts his recent blanking. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should two out of the three paragraphs in the lead section be about the USA? Why make specific allegations about and by one state in the lead. If I had seen that I would have been tempted to stick {{worldview}} on the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are main articles on alleged ST by USA and Iran etc., I would think it best to confine material in this article to no more than a paragraph per state, but with at least some mention of each alleged perpetrator which has an article. Ideally, there would be a reference to an author who distinguishes between the trend of the Western establishment to accuse opponents (Iran etc. of ST) and for dissident Western authors to accuse the US, and for Moslem states to accuse Israel. The reference to Stalin and Hitler in the lead could probably do with some expansion in the body of the text. There is a delicate task of balancing the emphasis given in the lead, (which should be very brief mentions of each instance,) the body of this article, and the separate detailed articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine then the quote and point should be moved down into the body, then. Note that its not about a country, the US, per se. Its about the conceptual framework of state terrorism, specifically the literature that advances it, and names Chomaky and others as pioneers in the field. That is why it is a perfect fit for this article. Giovanni33 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I restored it to the body of the article since no one has raised an objection to that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to have this in the intro or give undue weight. There are other articles for that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, which is why I moved it down into the body--not the intro. But you still blanked this quite relevant sourced material without explanation.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight as stated. Other articles for criticizing specific nations. No room to discuss all nations having done state terrorism, with the worst being the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany. Actually, we should remove the remaining criticism since this is still undue weight against the US. Objection with explanation, please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But your ignoring the point I already raised that my addition was not specific to any country. I said: "Note that its not about a country, the US, per se. Its about the conceptual framework of state terrorism, specifically the literature that advances it, and names Chomsky and others as pioneers in the field. That is why it is a perfect fit for this article." Because this article is on a particular topic, we should mention the pioneers of the conceptual framework the lead the way to the mass of academic literature we now have on the subject. Again, this is not about any specific country, and its irrelevant that Chomsky, et al. focus much of their writing on US State Terrorism--the material I included is not about that at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your text included "the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America." Again, other articles for such criticisms. Undue weight to mention the US so prominently many times when worse nations are not at all.Ultramarine (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually that is not undue weight since it characterizes the basis of Chomsky's work that the source says pioneered the field (what this article is about). The US is not mentioned so prominently so many times. That is false. It mentions it with proper weight for the introduction of Chomsky to the topic of State Terror. Specifically introducing his series of books that influenced mainstream human rights organizations and other writers. To not mention that they were about the US because it would be "undue" weight, is absurd. Here is the full text, so that readers can see the proper and completely valid context of it:
"Chomsky has been described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism. The introduction to Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror edited by Jeffrey A. Sluka states:

At the end of the 1970's, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of a new "global epidemic" of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America."

Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your edit included more than this. Chomsky and the US already mentioned in the article. Even if mentioning Chomsky, as the article already do, no need to mentioning the US so many times since it gives undue weight when nations having done much worse are not mentioned at all.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, my edit was the info above. The other parts were already in the article and were not my additions. It is your opinion that other nations are much worse. This is not relevant. This article is not, so far, doing some kind of compare/contrast about nations. The US is mentioned because that was the focus of Chomsky's work that played a significant role in the development and study of State Terror. Again, that is the point and that is the relevant reason for the validity of its inclusion. If we disagree, then no point to keep arguing. Lets get another editors in here, maybe a third editor as a tie breaker. I'll abide by consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not simply my opinion, see for example Rummel's work. The Great Terror alone killed more than all the allegations against the US added together.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This disputed view is besides the point (the real point you are ignoring). But I await for other editors input. If others agree, it should be restored. If I am alone on this issue, then I will not restore.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote from Jeffrey A. Sluka's excellent academic volume on state terrorism is essentially a quote about the historiography of the literature on state terrorism. It even makes sense to develop an independent section on the evolution of the concept in the literature on terrorology. This is a "start class" article. It is in its early stages of development, as such Ultramarine's objections about undue weight do not hold water. If he thinks that pertinent balancing views about the evolution of the bibliography are lacking, he should simply work on including topical material from reliable sources.BernardL (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to mention the US so many times. Take it to the US allegations article.Ultramarine (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you BernardL for your considered view on this dispute. I agree with you. Ultramarine, there is no need to remove a referenced discussion of State terrorism just because it happens to mention the US. WP is not censored. This is about the topic of State Terrorism in general, not the US. Stop removing it for poor reasons, esp. now that you are alone with your objections to this material and another editor has agreed the material is quite aprops.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Material can be expanded without mentioning the US numerous times.Ultramarine (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with mentioning the US in proper context, i.e. Chomsky's pioneering work on State Terror. Its not undue, but proper weight, to give him credit, and mention the books that impacted the historiography of the literature on this topic. You can be reported and blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate 3RR, in case you dont know. While I said I would respect consensus on this dispute, you don't seem willing to.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, undue weight against the US. Historiography and even Chomsky can be mentioned without having to mention the US numerous times. There is already an article about the US and state terrorism. As you well know since you are one of the editors there.Ultramarine (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My recent edits

I've cut a certain amount of material today because I thought there was too much discussion of terrorism in general rather than stste terrorism. Also a paragraph-long definition was repeated. It is also rather odd just hjaving the one substantive section called scope and definition.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I moved this and more material to the Definition of terrorism article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out a bit more. There now needs to a split to create a second section covering inatances and alleged instances of ST.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revert

I looked over the changes and like the other editor, the version by Dr.Gabriela is better. She added lots of very good information, and I noticed your changes added some weasel words. You also restored Hitler and Stalin, when it was removed asking why these two are singled out as examples of state terrorism? I agree, it adds a bias that a State must be authoritarian in order for it to engage in state terrorism, when the literature on the topic actually says the opposite. Also, the intro was moved down and replaced by this emphasis on the legal issue, saying "it it not an international legal concept." I don't think that is so important and should be in the body where its covered, and is not an introduction.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted sourced information like the UN rejection of the concept. If we mention the US we can mention Hitler and Stalin. The intro should not pick a winner regarding definition so Britannica should not be there. Mentioned later.Ultramarine (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Your may be right regarding "the not a legal concept", so removed from the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit war like you are doing, but I will point out that improvements in this article are being halted by your reversion--which you always do first---instead of taking it to talk for a resolution. Its not the way to go. Among other problems you keep introducing when you revert back, is redundancy, and thus undue weight, by repeating something many times. For example, even though you removed the legal definition from the top, we still find this in the article many time:
  • "is a controversial term, used when arguing that terrorism can be carried out by governments."
  • "Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial."
  • "There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is."
  • "The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition on terrorism by non-state actors." And:
  • "It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to to states."
I can probably find more examples of this, but five times saying the same thing in a small article? How many times do you need to say the same thing?! The redundancy makes it not fun to read. The organization is bad, too (even thought it was improved by other editors you revert them). I suggest talking more before you simply revert. And, please review WP:OWN.
Your insertion about Stalin and Hitler has not context, its not used to explain or illustrate a point like the material the references the US. So its seems POINTY content, and POV simply to mention them without any content issue that they are used to address. This article is not a list. Would it make sense if I started adding to that by adding Sri Lanka, Israel, et al? You get the point. So, the other editor was correct to remove this. It doesnt fit into the article. I can probably find a way to put it in within context of a discussion of state terrorism, though.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit war like you are doing With all due respect, Giovanni, you know that you can't edit-war (unless you count 1 revert a week edit-warring). John Smith's (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I can, and your wikistalking me here only to bicker with me on an off topic issue to this article talk page is disruptive. I suggest you review your behaviors, with all due respect.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you cannot if you don't want to get blocked again. If you are going to hold yourself out as avoiding conflict when you know you face severe consqeuences for such actions anyway I am hardly wikistalking - I'm setting the record straight. Oh, and that's the only interest I have in this discussion. I hope you reach a consensus with Ultramarine. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You have a point about the comment regarding Stalin and Hitler not discussing a definition so I removed that. Thanks for pointing out some duplication. I trimmed it. Regarding the controversy, it is quite significant. See this UN document: [8]. Most of the statements regarding controversy are from this source. I reorganized into sections to improve readability.Ultramarine (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In your edit you say you are restoring, but in fact you are deleting sourced information that was added by another editor. Your edit summary is misleading. The article now is harder to read,follow,and one is left with a worse understanding of State Terrorism, after you edits. The changes/deletions seen here, for example:[9] are continued until we have the current state of the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with user Giovanni33 on these points. However, I wish to be sensitive to Ultramarine who wants to hightlight the legal and political controversial nature of the concept of terrorism as applied to state actors. That is a legitimate point. Naturally, States, most of whom could be construed to be guilty under the broader construct of State-Terrorism--and indeed are so by these analysis--would be hard pressed to embrace the concept unanamiously. Ultramarine, do you have objections to the material you removed? I will try to improve the article again, and hope to understand your other objections you may have. Much thanks.DrGabriela (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


I have effected my several changes to improve its focus and readability; the article now is more centered on the actual subject: state terrorism.
I removed this statement to more appropriate for the article on the Defintion of Terrorism than on this article about State terrorism:
"Terminology consensus would be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present International conventions on terrorism...The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been an obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures.." It should be moved to the definitions of terrorism article.
I also removed some repetitions, as noted above. Among them, I found this curiously inaccurate sentence and removed it: "The concept is of state terrorism controversial and is usually applied to non-state groups." Actually the concept of state terrorism is usually applied to state groups. (big smile).DrGabriela (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks very good! Thank you. Finally the article is reading like an actual readable article on of all things, its actual subject matter! How apropos! Ultra, please lets discuss issues and proposed changes here on the talk page before going back and forth to the usual patterns. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You made numerous unexplained changes like deleting the UN statements regarding state terrorism. As well as picking a winner in the intro when there is no consensus regarding a correct defintion. As well as inserting quotes not mentioning state terrorism but only speaking about terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I find her changes to be explained. She cut out the UN statement and placed it above saying it belongs in the article on definitions. The section already states there is no one agreed legal definition, and that point is made clear, and referenced. Quoting the above from the UN is distracting and bloating. About picking a winner, I don't see that: the definition offered is the very basic definition that no one disputes. Do you have a source that disputes that definition? You seem to imply that because states don't agree upon a legal definition there is no agreement at all about a basic definition. That is a logical fallacy, and not true.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the UN material spoke direcly about state terrorism. There are many other definitions mentioned besides Britannica which is one of the more unimportant compared to UN or academics.Ultramarine (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Former US Secretary of State George Shultz elaborates on this conceptual framework shift: "What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984)." No mention of state terrorism. Only terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point. The section is talking about a shift in applying the definition and scope of Terrorism to States. That quote elaborates on that shift, into State Terrorism. What is the problem?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote says nothing about that. No mention of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at Shultz original speech. No mention of state terrorism. No elaborating on claimed shift.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"In contrast a broader interpretion of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature. It establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism.The term structural terrorism is sometimes used to describe state terrorism pointing out the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. That is policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreing policies." Unsourced and should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. The source for that is Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. They are leading academics who write on the subject.DrGabriela (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not the source given. The only possible source is a quote by another person not speaking about "structural terrorism" etc.Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow you here Ultramarine. The statement you quote above can be sourced to the book I have given you as the answer of where it comes from. I guess you mean to say that it is not clear in the article? I will be happy to remedy that.DrGabriela (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you have to give a ref to the book after the statement including the page number of the book cited. Many other problems as mentioned above, as a completely irrelevant quote by Schultz not discussing "state terrorism" at all.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Its on page 14. I have added a few more sources to the article. I'm sorry I don't know how to add references properly. But I will learn. About the Shulz quote, I'm afraid you don't understand. As the other editor has mentioned it is an elaboration on the wider scope of State Terrorism over the traditional definition. It is such broader scope that enables the concept to embarace State actors. I believe the article makes this rather clear.DrGabriela (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict). Ulra, how can you say its irrelevant? Its at the center of the issue: the narrow definition of terrorism found in the traditional view of it (as the cited information shows), and the expanded conceptual shift to encompass governments, not "crazed individuals, deviant behavior.' So the Shulz quote is completely relevant, in context, and well placed. This discussion, introduced by this new material, is actually, centrally discussed within the literature. Stolhl and Lopez who discuss this are excellent sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at the speech and no mention of state terrorism. Nor any "the expanded conceptual shift to encompass governments" Source does not support claims given in article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say the source does not support the claims given in the article? I have the source now and Im looking at it. You are mistaken.DrGabriela (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the speech itself. See below. Please continue the discussion there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

With DrGabriela latest version:

1. "Former US Secretary of State George Shultz elaborates on this conceptual framework shift: "What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984)." Looked at original speech. No mention of state terrorism. Only terrorism.[10]

That point is not relevant. The quote that Shultz elaborates on is the shift in the concept of terrorism from the traditional view of the deviant criminal, to the more expanded view of political violence. Shultz doesnt need to mention state terrorism for it to support the point its making. Also, if you look at the sources Dr.Gabriela added, its clear the the Shultz quote is being used this way by the source she is citing, to make the point. This makes it fine for inclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Shultz does not mention state terrorism or any shift to terrorism by governments. This quote my have been used by another source but then it is a misquote. You can read the original speech in my link above.Ultramarine (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ultra, you are doing OR. Its not up to you to dispute the meaning of that speech. You may not agree that Shultz is talking about a shift, but the speech to me does do that. However, the only thing that matters is that the qualified source makes this claim and cites Shultz as an example of someone who is elaborating on this before and after conception shift.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we should correct the quote to what Schultz actually said. Not the very misleading selective quotations now used.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the quote is fabricated, or are you arguing that its misleading based on your own reading? If the former, the point needs to be looked at, but the latter would be OR (unless you have a source that disputes the claims of this source?)Giovanni33 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Only saying we should give a more complete quote.Ultramarine (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Like "We have learned a great deal about terrorism in recent years. We have learned much about the terrorists themselves, their supporters, their diverse methods, their underlying motives, and their eventual goals. What once may have seemed the random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into clearer focus. A pattern of terrorist violence has emerged. It is an alarming pattern, but it is something that we can identify and, therefore, a threat that we can devise concrete measures to combat. The knowledge we have accumulated about terrorism over the years can provide the basis for a coherent strategy to deal with the phenomenon, if we have the will to turn our understanding into action.
We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose. Today, we are confronted with a wide assortment of terrorist groups which, alone or in concert, orchestrate acts of violence to achieve distinctly political ends. Their stated objectives may range from separatist causes to revenge for ethnic grievances to social and political revolution. Their methods may be just as diverse: from planting homemade explosives in public places to suicide car bombings to kidnapings and political assassinations. But the overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force--a special kind of force designed to create an atmosphere of fear."Ultramarine (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm glad to know that the quote was accurate, then. I don't see it as being misleading, though. The larger speech obviously has other points and thoughts, but I have two problems with expanding it: We are using the speech to make Shultz points that we want or feel should be made to address a point we want to make. This has the danger of OR, since the quote as it exists, is not by an editor, but by a third party source that uses it to make a larger point, of which Shultz only touches on in this speech. The other danger is that it gets off topic and distracts from the distilled point that is needed, and should be kept very concise and clear: that there was a shift in thinking regarding terrorism. So I support not altering the quote as it was cited in that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just being more comprehensive regarding the quote. The reader may interpret it themselves.Ultramarine (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not oppose adding a link to the larger speech, if readers want to the whole thing. But modifying the quote ourselves other than the way its was selected by the source would be problematic for reasons mentioned above.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is best to not quote that speech at all. Instead simply state "The authors cite former US Secretary of State George Shultz who allegedly elaborates on this conceptual framework shift in this speech"Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with presenting the case as the source presents it. Maybe we should get a third (fourth?) opinion from someone uninvolved but knowledgeable about the subject? I find the ideas better conveyed with the way it is.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2. "The term "Establishment" and "Structural terrorism" is sometimes used to describe state terrorism, which posits the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. This includes policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. Here state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies." Unsourced.

Untrue. Take a look. It is sourced!Giovanni33 (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The only possible source if a quote by Conor Cruise O'Brien who does not mention for example "strucutural terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify this point? I don't understand it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The only source given is "The academic Conor Cruise O'Brien has argued, for example: "Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)" That quote does not talk about "structural terrorism" or "a form of political violence", for example.Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. O'Brians was cited by M. Stohl's book, that makes the argument along those lines. I have made that clear in the text now. Thank you.DrGabriela (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

3.Wikipedia should not decide which definition is correct. So Britannica's definition should not be picked and listed as the winner in the intro. Also less relevant than UN or academic definitions.

4. It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to to states. It is usually applied to non-state groups.[11] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.[12] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"[13]" Sourced information deleted.

That point is already made. Its undue weight here to expand that. It belongs in the Definitions of Terrorism article that it links to.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Talks about state terrorism. Obviously the view of the UN should be mentioned. Not excluded totally.Ultramarine (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

5. There is no "Universal Definition of Terrorism" so incorrect to have such a title heading. Also those listed are just two of several others mentioned in the article.

As the section discusses it does mention the work of a universal definition. So obviously you are wrong. You seem to be confusing the legal consensus among states for adopting one agreed upon definition with its existence. Two different things.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Does not dicuss any work towards a universal definition at all. Only lists some definitions.Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
With respect to being able to be applied irrespective of perpetrators, its universal. The sections point is that the definitions divisions are artificial and applies a universal one: "Analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors alike..." What title would you prefer instead that makes this point?Giovanni33 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors alike..." is unsourced. The three given definitions are very different. No mention of "The sections point is that the definitions divisions are artificial and applies a universal one".Ultramarine (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What title would you suggest instead of "Universal..."? How about 'Towards a Universal..."?Giovanni33 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not in source either.Ultramarine (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

6. "Many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War Two." Only one scholar is listed.

Yes, but the one scholar listed may be making the claim, which is then valid. However, I agree with you we should have more than one source for that. Let me look for one and add it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

7. "Chomsky has in turn been criticized for allegedly ignoring or justifying terrorism by states such as Communist China, Vietnam, and Cambodia.[14] Herman responded to such accusations in Z Magazine.[1]" Sourced information deleted.

Good, this is not about Chomsky. That is an attack piece on Chomsky and it has been removed as such in other articles where you have inserted it.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV requires the inclusion of views from all sides.Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but on the subject matter: State terrorism--not Chomsky. If you have a source that disputes Chomsky view or particular claim, then I'd be ok with it. But, not a logical fallacy attacking Chomsky, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Article does not mention any specific allegations against the US. So no need for this material.
Looking again I see that he is "described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism," POV requires some opposing views. "Linguist and US policy critic Noam Chomsky, described by some as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism, criticized regarding his research by others" would be NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 8. "The manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict states: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.""successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[15]" Sourced information clarifying Chomsky's definition deletion.Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I did not even know that was in there, before. No wonder it was hard to follow what the article was about. This information belongs in the article about Low Intensity Conflict. Its a rather verbose description of LLC from globalsecurity. It does not say anything about Chomsky's claims that its akin to state terrorism. If it does, and I missed it, then we can use it but it has to be distilled to that point. Otherwise with all this information on LLC the point gets lost (if it was ever in there).Giovanni33 (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is quoted from the US manual on the subject. Since this is the definition Chomsky uses it should be described.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that is why we have wiki-links to the main article that discusses it. It not talking about Chomky's view either, its talking about what LLC is, from their perspective. Doesn't mention Chomsky or State terrorism. Its OR to use it in any other way. But you can put it in the article for LLC, and you can have a wikilink to LLC to that main article. Here it only bloats it with an off topic tangent.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Will add a link.Ultramarine (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a couple changes. I removed the excessive repetitions about controversy noted by Giovanni33. But I have kept the section for controversy to highlight that point in deference to Ultramarine. Per the discussion above, the actual quote cited of Shultz is favored so I have restored it. I agree it does convey an understanding of the ideas in a much better way with the quote. The introduction should state the basic definition. The Britanica quote and refernece does this.DrGabriela (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted sourced material without explanation like some of the UN viewpoint. As well as restored the Britannica definition as winner in the intro without discussing the objections regarding this above. Wikipedia should not give misleading information. There is no agreement regarding definition so a winner should not be stated. Please discuss your changes above.Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the differences, and your claims are not correct, Ultramarine. Dr.Gabriela did NOT delete your UN reference, even though I think it over plays the point. In fact she relented on that and relented on a whole section just for controversy. But you insist on a redundancy by stating the same point many times. So while she is making compromises and leaving in much of your edits, you insist in reverting her back to your original version. Per the discussion above, consensus was to keep the Shultz quote for the reasons I explained, instead of your "alleged" butnot explaining or showing what the source quotes.
Lastly, you are wrong about a definition. Its a simple concept and easily understood with a very basic definition as provided by Britannica. Its only the details and legal issues of applying it that are controversial. State terrorism, simply put, is terrorism of the state. How to define terrorism is a matter of controversy and discussed int he article. I see no problem with the intro providing the basic definition that no one disputes as not applicable. You say its picking a winner, but that is not true since the article talks about the controversy and the elements of the changing definitions. Also, if you say the basic definition is being contested, then please cite a source that says this Britannica definition is wrong, being opposed? On whole the version you reverted is far better.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I must concure with these thoughts but it would appear that we have reached an impasse with Ultramarine at this stage. Is there a way to have this looked at by other editors? I think we can have better chance for obtaining progress by involving more editors to address the disagreements. Ultramarine, I think you should hold off on reverting until we get more impute, yes?DrGabriela (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is. You can have this article listed on a Request for Comment and then see what other editors think about it. I agree Ultramarine should not edit war about this since currently consensus is against him.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I said part of the UN material was deleted. "has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept." Excluded and obviously very important. Still no agreement on what the correct definition is so wrong to have one in the intro. Lots of other sources disagree with the Britannica one.Ultramarine (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Many of the other problems mentioned above has not been solved either.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


More than one editor is acting as if they WP:OWN this article and are rolling back changes to the previous edits by them ignoring the fact that other editors have made changes in the mean time that have nothing to do with the issue that they are arguing about. I am reverting such edits. If the editors can't be bothered to sort out which changes are which, I don't see why the rest of us have to redo work caused by their laziness.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have explained what the problems are. Please state what your explanation is to the problems I have pointed out. Please give a diff showing that "other editors have made changes in the mean time that have nothing to do with the issue that they are arguing about".Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I made this change [16], It being important to distinguish between a statment made by an ex-Secretary General and one who actually had the post at the time he made the statement. Giovanni also made this change [17] correcting poor grammar ("a institunionalised"). Gabriella then reverted both as part of this change [18]. I then reinstated my change [19]. Giovanni made an additional change [20] and then you go and make this rollback [21] to your preferred historic version of the article. If you and Gabriella cannot be bothered to examine each of the intervening edits between your last efforts and your next attempt to edit the article then your are both acting in a selfish manner in which you dismiss efforts of third parties without actually noticing that some of these changes are uncontroversial. And if that is how you act, then the article is better without you.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 did not correct a poor grammar or "a institunionalised". Your own diff states that he changed "a institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states " to "the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states". Thus implying that an allegation is in fact an undisputed fact. Giovanni33's later addition was in fact in my last edit that you reverted. "at the time" regarding Kofi will be inserted. Anything else? If not, and if you have no response to the problems with the version you reverted to, like it deleting part of the UN view and incorrectly picking a winner in the intro, then I will restore the more correct verions.Ultramarine (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do Kofi Annan's views matter?

He's sure no expert on terrorism, and has displayed himself to be both stupid and biased in the past. Jtrainor (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but he is still notable.Ultramarine (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps in his own right, but the question is, are his views on terrorism noteable? Jtrainor (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When his is speakign as the senior official of the UN, then they are.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Brittanica

I'm assuming the failure tag was added the Brittanica quote because the definition is technically for "terrorism". However, the entire quote inludes "by state institutions" making it pertinent, but not as a introductory definition. I corrected the link and removed the tag as well. Also, the second quote from Brittanica makes a general statement which is undermined by other references in this article ..."always clandestine"... secrecy is not 'always' a defining quality of state terrorism because there is at times no need for secrecy as governments are often dominating forces. For this reason I've moved the Brittanica quotes to the definition section to follow the dictionary definition giving a logical flow to a list of controverial definitions clearly lacking unanimity. - Steve3849 talk 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Logical. Good work.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)