On 6/26/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)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.