Talk:United States and state terrorism

A mediation request in regards to this article was filed August 17th, 2006 by Travb.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Please see Talk:American terrorism for an older discussion relevant to this topic.

Non content related issue

Could something be done about the layout of this talk page? It is starting to get very confusing to navigate and certain parts seem to be showing up two or three times.--Kalsermar 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What portions? Thanks for the suggestion. Any ideas? Travb (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe everyone could cultivate brevity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A large portion of this text was moved to a user's wikipage, and I archived a large amount of text. I can't move some users comments around any longer with out their permission, because I promised not to.

• Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Nicaragua_vs._United_States
• Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Comments_from_below

Require a lot of space, because we are debating what exactly wikipolicy states.

Thanks for the great suggestion User:Tom harrison. Any suggestions how to implent this idea?

Would the conversation be easier to follow if I used the sandbox and the show preview button more often? Travb (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update Based on recent comments on this talk page, it appears like there will be less postings here, so the problem is solved, albiet temporarily. Travb (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to take another straw poll on the content, people can simply give their opinion on what items should stay and what should go. We can list the items in the article and people can say if they oppose its inclusion or not. I think i will draw one up and post it tomorrow. This way we can prevent any circular discussions and see where everyone stands on each issue, there may be a concensus on certain points that we are not already aware of. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, maybe there will be more participation in a straw poll than in my graph. I don't know how to make a straw poll, so I made the above graph, which probably accomplishes the same thing, but in a less user friendly manner.

Update: Reading over the straw poll page, Wikipedia:Straw_polls isn't my graphs above a straw poll? I am attempting to foster a consensus. Why reinvent the wheel? Unless a straw poll is radically different. I have never done one before. Is there an example of one somewhere?

Update 2 Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. okay, everyone, how should we do the straw poll? Travb (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No concensus needed, its not a question based straw poll, its gonig to be a list and everyone gets to give their opinion and say if they oppose its inclusion or not. It will be done later today. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No consensus needed about "the nature of the survey before it starts"? I already seperated all of the comments twice:

1. Once into large sections were "everyone gets to give their opinion" and another with
2. "a list and everyone gets to give their opinion and say if they oppose its inclusion or not." (graph above).

What are some of the problems you see with the graph I provided above? Travb (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its fragmented and specifically asks particular people their opinions, not everyone. The one I am making is for everyone to voice thier opinions, not just the people created in a list above. It also attempts to make certain points with footnotes instead of people reading the content on their own and judging it based on that. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also people wont be limited in their responses to a few words not have to confine those words to the borders of the template. It was a nice effort, but as you put it not user friendly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I eagerly await what you come up with Zerofaults, seems like a good idea you have there.--Kalsermar 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Antagonism?

User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Antagonism? Travb (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your personal issues off of the article talk space, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we archive the comments?

How would you all feel if we archived the old comments above #What should stay in the article? A kind of fresh start while we build a straw poll.

I was considering archiving #What should stay in the article?, but I think this could serve as a sort of one example of a straw poll.

We could archive everything above #Non content related issue if wanted.

Either way, I won't do anything until we get a "yes" or "no" from at least two people.Travb (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and archive everything -- this page is too long. Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay...If anyone objects, we can revert. Travb (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No arguments here!--Kalsermar 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw polls

I took the liberty of setting up a sub-page. I had the idea for this and then read that Zerofaults was planning similar and after consultation set it up. See Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls (Thank you for the move Travb). Hope this looks ok, I've never done this before.

I suggest we give it 4 days perhaps or a week at most to get a feeling of what is or isn't supported while contentious issues or when there's no clear consensus polls can be given some more time. I remind everyone again that this isn't a blind vote and Wikipedia policy still applies. Feel free to add polls or comments to this if you want.

I'd like to ask everyone who states an opinion to do so with some brevity and to not let this degenerate into another heated debate. There's always this talkpage for more indepth discussions. This is just to get a consensus going, not to rehash debates.--Kalsermar 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC), comment added 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Debating

I have debated for the past couple of days of just abandoning this page. Those who created this page have stopped posting days ago, one went on a wikivacation citing "childness". And only myself and those who wanted this page deleted remain. I learned a lot about wikipolicy (and how others use it), and how to make a kewl graph, so it is not a total loss. Travb (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr Ganser and ST911.org

I have again removed the misleading association of Dr. Ganser's 1999-2003 work with his membership of ST911.org in 2006. USER:Torturous Devastating Cudgel added this line and his stated reason was to associate Dr. Ganser "with a group of well know crackpots". This is POV pushing in its clearest form. ST911.org can have no possible association with Dr. Ganser's work as the organisation did not exist at the time. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, is he a member of the organization now? If so I do not see the problem, its like not calling George Bush as President Bush when you talk about anythnig that happened before the election ... If he is a member, I am sure he is a proud member, I am not sure what the problem is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its irrelivant to the research. And if someone wrote "Famous alcoholic President George Bush...", don't tell me that wouldn't be biased and POV pushing. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Except alcoholic isnt a position, nor something I am sure he is proud of. Are you comparing his membership to this group with a disease? hardly a fair comparison. If Ganser is a member, proudly not forceably, then I do not see the problem. Again when speaking about George Bush, notice how you said President, even though the alcoholism was in the past before the presidency ... you kind of proved the point. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing the article in a clear situation of an edit conflict while its protected anyway? This clearly isnt a typo or error, he is a member, its an editing conflict over if it should or should not mentioned, please place the information back in the article while the article is protected. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a clear error, and clearly biased POV pushing as admitted by the editor. If you can show that his current membership of an organisation that didn't exist at the time he did his reasearch has any connection with that research, then it can go back. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You havent even made a case, this is abuse of admin tools, your own words by citing alcoholism and president bush prove you wrong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The editor who added it himself says he did it to discredit Ganser. Given that, and the fact that there is no relationship and no possible relationship between ST911.org and this research, How can it be anything but biased POV pushing? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV being pushed if he is a proud member of that organization? You make it seems like he should shamed by the organizations he joins. So please, what is this POV of stating the organizations that he willingly joined and remains a member of. A prominent position should be highlited. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its irrelivant what his emotional state is. ST911.org didn't exist when he did the research. It has no connection with it. End of story. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not end of story, you are actually arguing against something you know is true. Your own words prove that he should be addressed by his prominent position. Your exact words were "Famous alcoholic President George Bush..." However he wasnt an alcoholic when he was president, so you should have been saying "famous alcoholic George Bush" if you really believed what you are arguing. This will be noted and when the protection is removed his position will be readded. Please refrain from using admin tools to solve content disputes you are involved with in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would kindly read again what I wrote you will see that I gave that as an example of what would also be inapproapiate.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct but your insinuated negative is alcoholism, which equates it to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, however you still noted him as president, whereas president, therefore even in your attempt to prove past events should not be noted, you still noted him according to the way the article should, by his prominent position.

• prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth Dr. Daniele Ganser...
• Famous alcoholic President George Bush..."

The insinuated negative is in bold, note you still called him persident though it was before the alcoholism. So you are in fact still noting him by his most prominent position regardless of the timeline. As I said before if you felt the prominent position should not be noted as the membership to a group, in this case alcholics, was before the position, it would simply read "Famous alcoholic George Bush" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an ETH researcher is less prominant than being a member of ST911.org? ETH is one of the most important universities in the world.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ETH is noted in both if you did not notice. It also just says he is "of" not that he is a research for. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His is and was a researcher for ETH. ETH awarded him a PhD for this research. There is no connection to ST911.org Self-Described Seabhcán 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out further your edit summary was incorrect, this information is not misleading and is quite factually verifiable. You seem to have a negative view of this oraganization as you equate it with alcoholism. However the doctor is quite happy with his membership, or at least he hasnt given it up as its voluntary, we should not exclude it simpyl because an admin has negative ideas associated with it. Noone said there was a connection, ST911.org connects to him as he is a prominent member of the organization, hence it should be noted. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't what you or I think. This article isn't about Ganser's life and isn't a list of his memberships. The article mentions research on a topic. There is absolutely zero connection between that research and this organisation. It was admittedly added to put a POV. It needs to be removed. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This person is not famous for having a PhD from ETH. He has an article, albeit stub, for his participation in Scholars for 9/11 Truth, hence it should be the thing we note, not a PhD from ETH. His article does not even mention ETH. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcan, I think it was inappropriate for you to make a substantive edit to the page while it was protected. I would appreciate it if you would undo it. Request unprotection if you want to, it has probably been long enough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules on editing protected pages say that minor corrections are permitted after consultation on the talk page. If you check the archive above, you will see that that is what was done. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As an Admin, isn't there supposed to be a firewall between the pages you edit, and the pages you use Admin powers on? Morton devonshire 14:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in the case of removing clear errors and cases of POV pushing. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't minor, and there was not general agreement for the change. It needs to be undone until the page is unprotected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert it you can explain how it isn't a clear case of POV pushing?Self-Described Seabhcán 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or I) can edit a page that was protected due to edit warring, to make the presentation closer to what you (or I) think is neutral? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The editor who added this text admitted on this talk page that it was done with the intent of POV pushing. This is akin to vandalism. In this case, yes and admin can remove the text. If you disagree, perhaps you should put a note on the Admin notice board. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the link that showed this? rootology (T) 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal may or may not be a good idea. (It is striking that a euphemism for 'conspiracy theorist' has in turn become pejorative.) It was not appropriate for you to use your admin powers to do it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)