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