yeah, 108 references, and so what do they do? Says the references to
NYTimes, Reuters, CNN, Chomsky, ABC etc. etc. are original research.
riiiight.
Honestly though, it is the good and natural instinct of editors/admins (I
make admins distinct from editors bc their perspectives are different on
deletions) to want to delete articles that aren't written very well or seem
to be POV at first glance. And this article certainly fits that bill, and it
may need a total rewrite in some sections. But that is no justification for
arguing that accusations (carried by book publishers and news organizations
no less) of state terror are just some nutty fringe idea that isn't worth
having an article on.
On 6/26/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/25/07, Slowking Man
<slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terroris…
I have no comment.
I have one.
Wow, 108 references.
This "State Terrorism" article had almost 80 references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_te…
However only a tiny number of them actually referred to "State
terrorism". Go figure.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l