On 6/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
yeah, 108 references, and so what do they do?
Who cares what they do? When it comes to US-bashing on Wikipedia I've found the only response worth the effort is to sit back and enjoy the show. My comment that wow, there were 108 references, was an expression of surprise that so much effort was put into this article.
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.
I think the article itself makes the best case for its own deletion: "The definition of terrorism is itself controversial, but the definition of state terrorism is even more so. There is no international consensus on what terrorism or state terrorism is. Nations disagree on what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement". There is no agreement regarding if state terrorism is a valid concept and if so, how to define it."
Anthony