Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was originally kept when nominated about a year ago. However, community consensus towards "allegations" articles has dimmed quite a bit in the meantime. Article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH; most other articles dealing with this kind of topic have been deleted or merged elsewhere. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, precedent (apparently), and per my argument in other AFDs that any article just about "allegations" of whatever is a recipe for POV pushing and is a biased, unencyclopedic form of coverage. --Rividian (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, WP:SYNTH means an original research, making a conclusion (A+B=>C) by a wikipedian. Please explain what is "A", "B" and "C" here. I do not see anything of that kind. This article is very well sourced. Second, why delete this article and keep other "allegation" articles, such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. You should be looking for a consensus to delete all "allegation" articles. If there is such consensus, that might be something reasonable.Biophys (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Well documented and a service to WP readers. Should be nominated for a GA article, not deleted.  Hmains (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Claim that "community consensus towards "allegations" articles has dimmed quite a bit in the meantime. most other articles dealing with this kind of topic have been deleted or merged elsewhere" is false, as demonstrated by recent (April 2008) Keep result in Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. --Martintg (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed he was referring to Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination), which was more recent and seems to have seen that entire family of articles go away, without even a DRV. He should have linked to that AFD, but his claim wasn't false enough to justify a "speedy keep" (which doesn't apply anyway if there are other good faith delete arguments). --Rividian (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep well sourced, per past consensus. Claim that other articles have been deleted or merged seems inaccurate as shown by Marting. Ostap 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The word "state terror(ism)" occurs exactly one in this article outside of the lead. This article looks to be a dumping ground for every event that is remotely seen as connecting some arm of the Russian/Soviet government and some action that looks like terrorism. - Merzbow (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Each "action" in this article was described in sources as "terrorism" or "terror". If something was not, please tell what it is. The sources are cited. "Looks like" terrorism to whom?Biophys (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Not all sources identify the subject as "state terrorism". Then let's rename the article as Terrorism by Russia. Why not?Biophys (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Accuracy and precision are important. If the article is "allegations of state terrorism", the sources better darn well say state terrorism. Just saying some colonel Joe Blowski or some sub-agency did something are not the same as saying the state did that action. The same with "terrorism by Russia" - you need sources that say Russia did that something, not just that some general did it. - Merzbow (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Red terror was an officially stated policy of the Soviet Russia, including hostage-taking and other things (there was never anything like that in the US - so the comparison with US article is not helpful here). The Red Terror policy certainly qualifies as a "state terrorism" policy per certain sources like a book by Kautsky. The support of international terrorist organizations by the KGB might be classified as a "state-sponsored" terrorism. However, these terrorists were not just "sponsored", but directed and even ordered to do their job. These are not "allegations" but proven fact per sources. Only in contemporary Russia, these are mostly "allegations" although very credible ones, like the poisoning of Litvinenko (international nuclear terrorism) or blowing up the buildings in Moscow. At least, a US presidential candidate McCain called the latter allegation "credible".Biophys (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Good sources and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This one and the entire series. If I could nominate a "Worst of wikipedia" this series of articles would be on it.  They are little more than a device for POV pushers to pile on a load of WP:SYN and WP:OR all under the guise of consensus.  Dman727 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then could you please explain what exactly is unsourced (OR) or represent WP:SYN in this article? If something is not sourced, I would remove this immediately. But so far I do not see any A+B=>C type conclusions here except those made in cited sources.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with Dman, all "allegations of state terrorism" articles are useful for nothing but pushing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and rumors. They're all based on WP:SYN, and this one is no exception. Not encyclopedic content (we would never see an article like his on Britannica for example). Just a useful propaganda tool to push anti-national sentiment. Krawndawg (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've not seen any of those voting "delete" on the basis that all "Allegations of state terrorism by XXXX" articles should be deleted involved in the discussion Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. Their abstention in that discussion contributed to a "keep" result. If we are serious about deleting of all "Allegations of state terrorism by XXXX", let's refactor this debate to include all such articles and move it to Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_Xxxxx. Martintg (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should look againr. I've put my 2 cents in on most of those votes (except for when I was away) Dman727 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Good sources and content.Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced article on a legitimate and well documented subject. I'd like to see more of the responses of the Russian and Soviet Governments to their critics, but this is a solveable content issue, not cause for deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic and well-sourced article. This topic is not new, there are several similar articles: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Allegations of state terrorism by Iran. With everytning that's been happening in Russia, it surely warrants an article on the subject. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYN and WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hmains and Ostap. Notable topic, has sources. Edison (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the USSR and Russia have been accused of committing state terrorism by a wide variety of reliable sources over many years. We cannot say if those allegations are true, but because they exist and have been made by multiple, credible sources, we should keep this article. Biruitorul Talk 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - "Allegations" are wp:syn and wp:point, regardless of how well the article is sourced. This article (as the other "allegations of state terrorism") is not detailing the allegations.  It is, in fact, making these allegations while cloaking it terms that attempt to make it Wikipedia-suitable.  The subject of these allegations can be merged with more appropriate articles (i.e., The Great Purge) or be the subject of new articles (i.e. "Political assassinations committed by Russia").  Furthermore, "state terrorism" is not a concept that enjoys a widely-accepted definition, which begs the question how we may include an NPOV article on the subject.  This article is totally unencyclopedic and is simply pushing one point of view.  Wikipedia is not a resource to publish opinionated claims, although inclusion of this article in Wikipedia could demand a new-term: "tabloid encyclopedia".  BWH76 (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You tell: "Wikipedia is not a resource to publish opinionated claims". Not so. If the claims are published in reliable sources and notable, they represent an encyclopedic content. Almost everything is someone's claim. But this article does not includes merely the claims. It includes a lot of factual information. If you do not like "allegations", let's remove this word and modify text accordingly. But that would be a matter of renaming, not deletion. An article that is based on published sources does not make anything. It summarizes published data. Any article in WP creates some content, simply because writing is a creative activity. This does not mean wp:syn by default. Biophys (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go through this article section by section to see how it meets any of our criteria. If you'd like a summary, I'll tell you now: it doesn't.  Please keep in mind that the article claims to be about allegations of "state terrorism" - to substantiate these claims, we need multiple sources.  Particularly when it is a controversial claim utilizing a term that is not widely accepted.
 * Red terror - Who made the claim that this is state terrorism? Simply because it is called "terror" does not mean it is terrorism.
 * Internal Soviet terror - Where is the reference that terms this "state terror#?
 * Promotion of terrorist organizations - Where is it claimed that this is an instance of USSR-supported terrorism? More generally, where is the reference to support the idea that support of militant organizations (be they termed terrorist or not) is a case of "state terror"?  Support of "terrorist" organizations does not necessarily mean "state terror".
 * Political assassinations - Where is it referenced that each individual act listed here is a case of "state terror"? The idea that assassinations are "state terror" is controversial to say the least; a minority view to be more accurate.  Political assassinations do not fit into the generally defined (and generally accepted) definitions of "terrorism".
 * Preparations for terrorism... - Sorry, but alleged claims of "preparations for terrorism" are not terrorism.
 * Contemporary Russia - This is a clear example of a breach of NPOV. If you would like, I'll go into it further, though this seems obvious to me.
 * Allegations...Chechnya - One journalist makes a decidedly controversial claim and it is encyclopedic? No.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
 * Alexander Litvinenko... - Where is the reference claiming that this is terrorism? Again, an (alleged) assassination is not defined "state terrorism" by any major organization except activist organizations - though none are sourced here.
 * 1999 Russian apartment bombings - A total content fork. There is a main article on the subject; this here provides only one viewpoint.
 * Viktor Yushchenko... - Where are the references that claims this as terror? Again, see my comments on assassination.
 * Other cases - POV forks, conspiracy theories.
 * Introductory paragraph - it is just plain awful. "many ocassions," "human rights groups," "critics of the Russian government" - please.  None of this is sourced.
 * The entire article is a giant ball of a non-neutral point of view, wp:syn, with a lot of wp:point mixed in for good measure. The allegations are not demonstrated here - they are made here.  Once again, when we cover controversial topics, multiple sources are needed for each claim.  These "allegations" are in fact "accusations"- and it has no place here on Wikipedia masquerading as a legitimate entry.  BWH76 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You got to be kidding me. There are plenty of references to "state terrorism" by Russia and the Soviet Union in the article, and even more to be found here:, , , , , . Martintg (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the case at all. You are using the phrase "state terror" and the concept of "state terrorism" interchangeably.  This is neither correct nor is it accurate.  Though there is a relationship between the two, they are not interchangeable.  BWH76 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Each of your specific points can be easily disputed. For example, one can easily provide references (e.g. a book on terrorism by Kautsky or even Encyclopedia Britannica) telling that terror=terrorism, or that poisoning of Litvinenko represents an act of "nuclear terrorism". Active "preparations" to the terrorism acts by the Soviet Union included actual planting of weapons on the foreign soil booby trapped with Molniya (explosive trap) devices. Several such devices have been disarmed in Europe as described in scholarly books. That has been described in scholarly sources as terrorism. And so on, and so on. But an AfD discussion is not a place to discuss all specific issues with the article. Such issues must be fixed rather than the entire article deleted.Biophys (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.