On 6/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
just like those against the article, you are only arguing about how accusations of state terror are false.
I don't think I've done that at all. What I've argued is that the term "state terrorism" is not well defined.
The issue is that the subject is a notable one, not just in high-profile liberal academic circles, but even in major news and publications.
What subject exactly?
There are all kinds of articles about conservative and religious viewpoints that are not only dubious, but have been proven wrong outright.
Can you give an example which you think is analogous to this article?
But it is the job of Wikipedia to give an account of what the published views on the subject are to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic resource.
I'm not sure if I agree or not. Depends on what "the subject" is. I won't try to guess. The title of the article in question is [[State terrorism by the United States]], which is a fine subject *if* you accept the fact that the United States engages in state terrorism. OTOH, if the subject is [[List of incidents in which the actions by United States leaders have been called "state terrorism"]], I think the subject passes a neutrality test but becomes much less interesting.
We keep articles on Holocaust denial to inform readers about what those who comment on the subject say in published sources.
Holocaust denial is a well defined subject, and holocaust denial is a dispute over facts, not semantics.