Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There seems to be a consensus that the sourcing and POV of this article make it unfit for inclusion in the project. There is less of a consensus that this is a non-notable subject, so if anyone wants to have the article restored, please write a userspace draft and propose via WP:DRV that it be restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India and state sponsored terrorism

[edit]
India and state sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically this is a list of Pakistani allegations against India accusing India of supporting terrorism. The majority of the article is a synthesis with some OR thrown into the mix. There is nothing here which cannot be added to the State sponsored terrorism article or to the article on RAW. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: violates???, shamelessly covering the terrorism. In the existence of most reliable sources, tagging the article for deletion?, is that legitimate?, perhaps yes because all looks yellow to a jaundiced eye, but the world is not blind. Justice007 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet to see a reliable source, much less "most reliable sources". Such flowery words are almost all that was produced in the talk page in favour of keeping the POV content which others were trying to remove.Suraj T 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Justice...I very strongly suggest you mind and censor your language.Let your inner thoughts remain inside. Be somewhat civil while in a discussion. TheStrikeΣagle 14:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:FORK. The article contains cherry picked Quotes and allegations many of them from WP:SPS and questionable sources and merged together with WP:SYNTHESIS for obvious anti-India POV pushing. Moreover statements of allegations are being pushed as proof. --DBigXray 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has been proven to be SPS, synthesis or OR in the article. This topic is highly notable and includes statements by heads of state (Presidents, Prime Ministers), politicians, academics on the issue. There are a variety of sources available that make this topic important, the ones currently used on the article are just a tip of the iceberg. This deletion discussion is simply a result of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a poor attempt to whitewash content when users couldn't get to enforce their POV on the article. The only thing that is shameless here is this AFD being initiated by a user who has a clear conflict of interest. Mar4d (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the article was in a far different shape and had other reliably sourced content too which was removed by the users claiming to be enforcing NPOV (for example, Edolphus Towns statement was removed, Wikileaks allegations by the United Arab Emirates were removed and an incident on Indian Army trained militants infiltrating Azad Kashmir was removed, a quote detailing RAW activities in Balochistan by Mushahid Hussain Sayed was removed simply on lame summaries) along with other things, making the current article a jumbled mess without a head or tail. Furthermore, the article is part of a series of country terrorism articles eg. United States and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism, Sri Lanka and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism etc. Why should there be double standards here? Mar4d (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looked great when the Northern alliance were in there being accused of terrorism with absolutely no source at all. I would recommend anyone voting in this AFD to take a look at the talk page of the article, [[1]] this section in particular is quite good. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with DS here. I have been trying to improve the article for a few days now and in my opinion, has very little to no scope for improvement other than removal of 90% of the content which is either original research or misrepresented content woven to allege India of supporting terrorism. The remaining content would be a bunch of unfounded allegations by Pakistan supported by self published sources. A further websearch has revealed nothing but further allegations by Pakistan from unreliable sources. Suraj T 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So heads of state, politicians, academic sources, governments, they are all "unreliable"? Wow. Just wow. Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. I am tired of your counter arguments citing lame sources for your claims, like for example, a thesis by a random student or a self published book to name a couple. The talk page of the article clearly shows that editors have been repeatedly asking you to bring up credible sources for "heads of state, politicians, academic sources, governments" alleging India of terrorism without success.Suraj T 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP - Yes, I concur with what Suraj88, DBigXray above me have already said, it iniquitously violates WP:SOAP, WP:COAT and perhaps WP:NOTCASE.

    Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

    This article is actually imputing terrorism to a whole nation, even though NO concrete evidence (only fabricated claims) has been provided on international podium to make India seem liable for "sponsoring-terrorism". This article is itself a wicked violation of WP:NPOV. An article on the subject of this magnitude based on the unsubstantiated, speculative, tenuous reports or unfounded, propagandist allegations by unreliable, biased sources is not what should be encouraged. Also I don't think the article meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

    Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation. Minor news stories are all examples of coverage but they do not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Thank you. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article has a lot of accusations and less facts --sarvajna (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a crystal clear violation of WP:FORK, WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, and a case of cherry picking, this article seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT. The only argument the article creator has presented in WP:WAX, which is, like always, eligible to be discounted. Like most other similar articles in this topic, the purpose of the article is evidently to advance a position. The article is full of WP:SPSs, and what makes it worse is that they have been used to support highly controversial allegations. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: even after the much blanking and renaming [2], the article still has reliable sources and is a notable topic and should not be deleted just because Indian editors want it to be censored. This is against wikipedia policy and I'll like to remind everyone that consensus does not override policy. The burden for establishing notability is cleared, and and POV related issues should be dealt with on the talkpage; AFD is not for clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TG, a clarification. "Consensus does not override policy" makes no sense because consensus is the main decision making policy on Wikipedia. It is through consensus that editors will decide here whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements or whether it is mere synthesis and OR. --regentspark (comment) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but consensus is not a ballot vote, which I suspect may be happening here. In short, the closing admin should weigh up the pros and cons. There are clearly enough sources available that lend notability and credibility of this topic. Wikipedia is not truth (Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth) remember. If there are sources which say something, we put them forward. I'm afraid all of the voters here demonstrate an I-don't-like-it attitude to the article. Mar4d (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that consensus is policy (and therefore there is no question of anything else deciding an AfD). TG might want to refactor his !vote because it doesn't make sense the way it is written. --regentspark (comment) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of refactoring, I'll clarify my comment further as I still intend to stand by it.. just that you didn't get the intended meaning. Yes, policy is dictated by consensus (but unlike this one... a consensus among the general community which this consensus can not override). Hope it is clearer now. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better because you no longer say that consensus cannot override policy (consensus is, after all, our key policy!) But, to be honest, your clarification, assuming I'm getting the intended meaning this time, is vague and not very useful. For example, which particular consensus among the general community are the delete !votes trying to override? --regentspark (comment) 02:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This, more or less, is what the article ought to look like. Just for outsiders who come to this AfD and see the current article (which is a mess), how substantial content has been removed from the original version to the current version, due to sensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT camp. Mar4d (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have not removed three SPS sources from it. The first three refs are SPS. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Insensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT CAMP"? All the content that was removed was gross POV violations and classic examples of WP:SYNTH. This comment and comments like "Indian editors want it to be censored" made by Topgun above for example exhibit the nationalist POV pushing mentality that has motivated the addition of content. AFAIK, all content that was removed was explained atleast through informative edit summaries to make such claims moot. Suraj T 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Edolphus Town's entire quote was removed because it was "undue" and his speech was offensive to some user's sentiments? Azad Kashmir section was removed because it's just "one report", How Indian officials or Gov of India can be connected to it is beyond me" [3]. UAE section was removed because.... oh dear, it's "coatrack". Entire Bangladesh section was removed because one user thinks that it "has no specific mention of terrorism", and then when you open the talk page... you find zero (zilch, nada, nil) discussion. An entire quote by senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed is deleted because of another chap who thinks it is "inessential, lengthy" [4]. Oh, and now we come to the big fish. An entire section of allegations gets deleted because another of our buddies has this irritating habit of labeling everything WP:SPS without checking. You ask him repeatedly to take it to the RSN thread. He does, and it is discovered that the text in question is a work of the Federation of American Scientists, by John E. Pike and Steven Aftergood (so much for SPS). Yes, way to go for your "informative edit summaries to make such claims moot". Applause for the self-proclaimed NPOV-enforcers of this article.[sarcasm] Mar4d (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the source from the Federation of American Scientists so you can replace the SPS you used. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, I guess you just reinforced my point further. Did you even try to understand what those edit summaries you quoted above were trying to inform? You seem to be disagreeing with everything that intends to remove content from the article regardless of rationale.Suraj T 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d (talk) - You are constantly (intentionally or not) violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL.
If you could check your way of expressing your colossal spite toward others who disagree with you, I would be grateful. But the allegations like
  • "content have been removed ...due to sensitivities of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT camp".
  • "Edolphus Town's entire quote was removed because it was "undue" and his speech was offensive to some user's sentiments"
  • "Applause for the self-proclaimed NPOV-enforcers of this article."
    • are gratuitous.
    Now frankly, if all you can do here is accuse others of the things they didn't actually do, then it's better that you report other users on suitable pages and leave this thread alone, you've already voted, commented, responded, etc. haven't you?

    Nobody is being barred from checking or commenting on the talk page of this article. Please don't assume stuff beforehand. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Really?

    Do you mean India has been irrefutably confirmed to be "harboring or harnessing terrorism"? If so, then where, by whom, and how can you impute that to a whole nation based on nothing more than some form of rumors?
    Is your claim is substantiated or validated by any conclusive investigation by any foreign government/department that shows Indian government itself is using terrorism against other countries?
    No.
    Only rumors and unfounded allegations juxtaposed with fabricated assertions (and other conspiracy theories) by Pakistani Leaders. Like Surajt88 said above, "Such flowery words are almost all that was produced in the talk page in favour of keeping the POV content". And we say BLP-violation is unacceptable. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Agree with Bearian as to SOAP/FORK. Language also NPOV and incidents cherry-picked, allegations assumed as fact. Indian Peacekeeping Force in Sri Lanka does not comprise state-sponsored terrorism. There are other objectionable cases also. AshLin (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Please show us these "reliable sources" which say India is a state sponsor of terrorism? The article is full of SPS, it used opinions as facts, it relies on WP:SYNTH, not one single fact is in the article, it is all one big long list of allegations form Pakistan. Perhaps a rename to Allegations of Indian state sponsored terrorism by their old foe Pakistan, which is basically what the article is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the above comment by Crown Prince, its clear that he is did not see the talk page of the article. The sources that few editors are calling reliable, in reality are Self published sources and the article is a list of allegations/claims from poor sources with combined together with WP:SYNTHESIS for obvious POV pushing. Concerns are genuine and one needs to WP:HEAR. --DBigXray 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crown Prince, although the typical " KEEP blah.. blah.. has reliable sources blah.. blah.. is notable blah.. blah..~~~~" (also demonstrated by SMS above) might be relevant in a few Afds, in this context, gives the impression that you did not bother to read the concerns raised at the talk page or even previous comments in this page for that matter. The matter of the article having reliable sources or even notability has been repeatedly refuted both here and the talk page and IMHO, your !vote (and SMS's) adds nothing new to this discussion.
    And as a side note, DS's Allegations of Indian state sponsored terrorism by their old foe Pakistan seems to be the perfect title for this article. I am considering changing my !vote to move the article to this title. Suraj T 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just allegations by Pakistan, where? Some people are overlooking other sections of the article (not to forget ones that have already been deleted for no reason). Mar4d p(talk) 05:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just deleted for no reason, where? Some people are overlooking the rationales provided in the talk page (not to forget ones that have already been given here). Suraj T 07:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of the references you have provided, [19] (no page number), [20] (allegations by a Pakistani politician), [21] (India and Nepal accuse each other of indifference, later collaborate against Maoists, ISI; not good enough for state sponsored terrorism), [22] (accusations of espionage not terrorism), [23] (an isolated case of two arms smugglers claiming allegiance to R&AW, isn't good enough for state sponsored terrorism), [24] (Kalpaz is same as Gyan a known problematic publisher), [25] (the author is representing an allegation, "are said to be..." ) cannot be used as reliable sources on this subject.
    The sources [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] are about Indian/R&AW involvement with the LTTE. While these sources look reliable, there is no point in bloating a whole article with SPSs and allegations, violating a dozen wikipedia policies in the process, when the content on LTTE could just as easily be placed here and here. Your final source ([32]) describes accusations by Pakistan (not good enough again) and Indian sponsored blasts in Sialkot. It looks alright on a cursory glance, however it should be subject to same kind of scrutiny as other sources have been subject to, on the talk page. And this source alone still does not validate the existence of a separate article with SOAPish content. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, the fact of matter always has been that this article is about an extremely sensitive and derogatory claim against a whole Nation which is backed only by some form of unfounded allegation or hypothesis by Pakistani leaders and media.
    No Head of state or National political party or Intelligence agencies or renown counter-terrorism organization of any foreign country has ever officially (i.e. on international podium like UN or any Summits) condemned India for sponsoring terrorism. Yes, it's true Pakistani leaders have always alleged many radical things regarding India, but never supported their lofty allegations up with any credible or tangible proof on any international platform.
    This whole article is built on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

    Wikipedia is not a means for disseminating libelous accusations, propaganda of any kind, be it commercial, political, religious, national, or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMS, please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Just because a multitude of websites turned up when "India" and "terrorism" were included in a google search, it does not not mean that India supports terrorism. Not one reliable source in the huge string of links you provided, establishes Indian government support to terrorism factually. What is it with you guys and allegations? Anybody can allege anybody. The fact that a Pakistani leader is the alleger does not automatically prove that the alleged did the alleged crime. Independent investigations have to be performed and the results have to be published in an international arena. Which in this case, has not been done. And no Pakistani sources please. Pakistani media has reported false information and apologised many times has no credibility internationally IMO and for this case where international media has not established india's link to terrorism, use of Pakistani sources cannot be warranted. Suraj T 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Took you ages? You have registered your account 20 days ago and have made 14 edits in total (not that date of registration and edit count are taken into consideration for a comment to be valid). You have made one edit on July 25 and resumed editing the next day this afd was opened. I don't know about others, but I have strong suspicions of foulplay here.
    And what do you mean by "a case of censorship by people of that particular country we must move forward"? I seriously hope it is not an Ad hominem attack.
    As for the presence of reliable sources in the article, just the presence of sources from BBC or NYT does not warrant its inclusion. What has to be analyzed is whether the stuff included is within the scope of the article. If the article documented the sponsorship of terrorism by India supported by reliable independent sources, accusations by Pakistan will have a place in the article. But this is not the case here. Though reliable sources are provided, they "do not document terrorism of India as fact". All of them "document trivial mentions of allegations by Pakistan". The whole article is a list of allegations made by Pakistan over the years with no scope for further improvement and hence has no place in Wikipedia. Suraj T 04:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    by certain Indian editors - how do you know they are from India? And what has that got to do with this AfD? Does it make their assertions less true?

    Nationality has nothing to do with it. Do not assume bad faith. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one who can't tell the difference between state sponsored terrorism and state terrorism. These are entirely different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. However, the article contains a number of academic sources that discuss either India's involvement or the possibility of India's involvement in the LTTE struggle. There are also some good sources on Burma. I don't really like these sorts of articles (are the Chin and Kachin rebels freedom fighters or terrorists, what about the LTTE, these sorts of questions are difficult to answer). But I can't think of other ways to title this article and it does seem that Wikipedia supports articles of this sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    • @RegentsPark (talk) - I don't understand what your point actually is. Are you saying that even though the article is a "POV mess" it should be kept? Doesn't it sound perilously close to what we know as I SIMPLY LIKE IT?
      There have not been any credible evidence (i.e. reliable sources which go beyond the realm of "claims") for alleging India of "sponsoring terrorism".

      "beyond allegations" (Sri Lanka) - wow, did you even care to read talk page?

    State-sponsored terrorism ≠ State terrorism.

    As a side note, How one could be able to neutrally stigmatize a whole nation basing upon poxy conjectures, lofty fabrication and unfounded conspiracy theories, is beyond me ! Mrt3366 (Talk?) 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You know there is a difference between the "whole nation" and the "state". Also, for you they might be theories but wikipedia is not censored. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article is in effect blemishing the whole structure of Indian government when it alleges India sponsors terrorism. But yeah, there is a difference like there is a difference between conjectures and facts. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 17:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that India withdrew support for the LTTE long before it was designated a terrorist organisation. (See Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Proscription as a terrorist group) Infact India was the first to designate it a terrorist organisation. As such half of the Sri Lanka section on LTTE has to be removed. Hence, the entire Sri Lanka section, apart from the one sentence where the Sri Lankan Prime minister "alleges" of terrorist camps in India, is full of Pakistani allegations which can be moved as a subsection under Pakistani allegations. The same goes for the section on Burma which has to be removed because it mentions support to rebels in Burma as terrorist activities. A good example for WP:SYNTH. (See Talk:India and state sponsored terrorism#Section on Burma)
    And the article cannot be rewritten neutrally. If you tried, the entire article would contain nothing but the lead sentence with no scope for further expansion. Also please see the last few edits before the article was fully protected. This is what the article would look like if you tried to reorder the content to its appropriate sections and removed stuff that didn't mention anything about terrorism and kept everything else. As can be seen, it is one big list of Pakistani allegations. And as far as allegations go, its veracity can be understood by anyone who knows atleast something about Pakistan's stance on India.
    As an example, North Korea alleges US of terrorism on a daily basis. You can't have an article on "US and state sponsored terrorism" and just list all the allegations North Korea has ever made. If you can't find other sources establishing US involvement in terrorism, no matter how hard you try to rewrite the article neutrally, you would fail.Suraj T 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    RP, the Kachin rebels were fighting against the military junta, they not usually called a terrorist group as they were fighting against state terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is split from the top level article on State-sponsored terrorism. As per the summary style of writing articles, split is only recommended after consideration has been given to:
      • Size of the article — ☒N the section on India in State-sponsored terrorism is just two lines long. It does not warrant a new article.
      • Notability issues — ☒N was this discussed?
      • Neutrality issues — ☒N this has been pointed out numerous times in the discussion and in the talk page.
    I suggest that this article be deleted and the editors here shift to the section on India in State-sponsored terrorism. Once that section is expanded, the POV issues are dealt with and the editors still feel that a broader coverage of the topic is required, they are free create a new article. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_and_state_sponsored_terrorism&oldid=1254230901"