User talk:66.20.28.21

Hi 66.20.28.21 -- there were a number of your contributions over the lkast few days that were right at home in SouceWatch which I added to (such as the Cuba PAC). However, there were a number of others I was less persuaded about but tolerated to see where they were going. One of the perennial issues we confront is tring to keep to our primary mission of documenting corporate and government propaganda. (Of course the boundaries about what neatly falls within this charter is fuzzy at times).

Where contributors post material that contributors here feel is off topic we prefer that it be posted in other wikis such as Wikipedia which has a much more general focus. This is also likely to have the benefit of an article you seed there being built on as it attracts more generalist contributors. Here it is more likely to remain unchanged. Some contributors post in both Wikipedia and Sourcewatch but distinguish between which content is appropriate for which.

So by all means add material here that you think is appropriate but if it is of a more general nature, such as reviews of various science fiction works, then it is probably more appropriate over at Wikipedia. If you are unsure feel free to either post a query to a talk page or drop me a line. Hope that helps clarify things. --Bob Burton 00:13, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

Hello. It's an extrapolation to infer that my removal of one reference and one article from the vast quantity of your contributions should be taken as "alienation" (nice pun; yours). In fact, you may readily note that I indicated approval of the Political ideas in science fiction article by minor edit thereof, which also serves as good example of linking over to Wikipedia. There are plenty of interesting political and social ideas in general fiction as well.

The trick with SourceWatch is to incorporate useful references, and articles of expanded explanation, which support rather than detract (by dilution) from, the SourceWatch themes of exposing deception in advertising, media, corporate, and government propaganda. Thanks, --Maynard 08:27, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

Bob Burton and Maynard, Thank you. 66.20.28.21

usage of "terrorist"
Plese use caution with the word "terrorist". It is ill-defined, and no definition has been aprroved internationally. It is also often used to demonise without properly attributing acts of terror to the entity being demonised. A case in point would be your recent Renamo article, which makes many allegations of evildoing, but doesn't mention any specific acts.

Dangerous indeed, and apt to be edited used this way on sourcewatch.

--Hugh Manatee 16:47, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

response from 66.20:

The sources that I cited offer plenty of evidence of violence directed against civilians to undermine their confidence in their government. One of the sources I cited, that by Mahmood Mamdani, uses the word terrorism in precisely that manner on page 91.

For Nicaraguan Contra terrorism I think a good source is Reed Brody's 1985 book Contra Terror in Nicaragua, South End Press, ISBN 0896083128, which includes a four year (Dec. 1, 1981 - November 30 1984) chronology of events which are difficult to describe as anything other than terrorism. Granted, some people believe that terrorism may refer only to violence that is directed at civilians in advanced industrial countries. But I am reluctant to privilege the lives of people in rich countries over those of people in poor countries by restricting the use of the word in that manner. Poor folks value their lives just the same as rich folks. Mainstream media are more likely to report the names and other details of people who die in terrorist events if they come from rich countries than if they come from poor countries. That selective reporting seems to warp conceptions of what we deem to be terrorism.