Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state terrorism


 * 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. Consensus is that the article fails WP:SYNTH. – Juliancolton  | Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

India and state terrorism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This information would seem to belong in the article about India and/or State terrorism. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By "information," I am referring to the 3 events being discussed in the article. Recommend Merge to State terrorism. --[[User:OliverTwisted|

Oliver ]] Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot vote on this, as my opinion would be slightly biased (being an Indian), but it looks as if this article should be merged into the article about the Research and Analysis Wing. It is not notable enough to merit it's own article. In all fairness, it does warrant a mention in the RAW article. I think every intelligence agency (including Pakistan's ISI, to a very large extent) has been accused of spying, and RAW is no exception. Anti  venin  09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have no issue with the content presented, it just wouldn't seem to stand up as it's own article. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In my opinion, I think this article needs to be cleaned or "wikified" as they call it, and needs more facts since the stuff written here is only a small proportion. Furthermore, adding this info to the actual RAW article would be a very stupid move because the RAW article should just entirely be focused on the intelligence agency itself with little amount of controversies written. Even if this info is substituted in that article, I doubt if it will exist even for a week, since pro-Indian users will have no hassle of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianstar (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Presenting a new article as a way to "get around" the community process regarding another article does not seem to be a valid argument for the article to be kept without merging. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a 'pro-India' editor, and I would keep the 'controversial' information in the RAW article, provided it is marked as such. The information does NOT deserve it's own article, wikified or not. Anti  venin  10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Antivenin, how can you guarantee that sensitive issues like these can be well preserved, especially on an article that is directly written about an Indian intelligence agency? As a note of reminder, I remember there was once content written about India's widely-alleged case of funding the Baloch rebels in the controversy section, and it was only after a short time that the info was deliberately removed from the page. You can now visit the page yourself, and you will find absolutely nothing relating to the so-called Baloch insurgency. If this kind of content cannot be tolerated overthere at all, I want you to clearly justify to me how it will be, once this article is deleted to your satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianstar (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot personally guarantee anything. However if it follows Wikipedia policies, it will not be deleted. The 'controversy' about India supporting the Baloch rebels isn't even worth a mention. It was a baseless accusation by ex Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf which has hyped up on Wikipedia. It didn't receive significant news coverage. Heck, it failed to satisfy so many Wikipedia criteria that it was removed. If the controversy is well-sourced and written from a neutral point of view, then it will stay. Anti  venin  10:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A "baseless" accusation? So I am assuming that you are right now just ignoring some dozens of links worth of it in Google plus the fact that the weapons discovered are entirely Indian? Anyways, this is going off the topic and should not be brought up right now. The bottom line is that, apart from your opinion of this being "baseless", I can rightfully also personally assume that Pakistan supporting Assam militant outfits is totally a baseless accusation too and heck, I can challange you that half the people don't even know what associations ISI and Assam have in common. The most funny thing is, that despite the validity of this alleged accusation, it has still been listed in the Pakistan section on the State-sponsored terrorism article (and only with one source) whilst something like India supporting Baloch rebels can have up to as much as 20 links. Its funny how you can have no exceptions with these one-sided type of things and call something in opposition "baseless." And one more thing, instead of worrying what is baseless and what isn't, I think you ought to get back on the actual discussion, which is based on this article because this argument can go on and on. While Indian users will of course, have exceptions, I think it is neccessary to get "third-party" reviews. 123.211.83.75 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC) — 123.211.83.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Strong Keep".Indian support for LTTE and BLA both are well documented fact.Support for LTTE is confirmed by Indian,Sri Lankan, Tamil and American sources.LTTE was created and nutured by Late Indria Ghandi in her own word to "Teach Sri Lanka a lesson".Even Tamil tigers(LTTE) confirm that they have been trained by Indian army(this make it separate from Raw's recruitement).Offical tamil webiste here .For India role in Afghanistan see .This should be kept.It is a seaprate article Indian army is also involved. yousaf465
 * Dear me. Your arguments are all over the place. Please stick to the topic. This is not a political debate, it's one of content. Anti  venin  15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although, there are other articles regarding certain countries and state terrorism(United States and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism), the references regarding state terrorism in this case(as the article currently stands) don't seem strong enough to warrant an article devoted to the subject. Additionally, the article seems to focus on charges from a small group of countries(Pakistan and Sri Lanka). So, I would personally support deleting the article in it's current form. Wacko Jack O   13:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In not only the Two countries American and other sources support this. yousaf465
 * Comment: If possible, I would like to try to steer this discussion back toward whether the article should be deleted, stand alone as an article or whether it would be best served by being merged, or the information included somewhere else. I'm not sure that getting into a political discussion will be at all helpful. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should stand alone as article.There is some much information available it can't be merged with anything else.Some information is publish just a day ago. yousaf465
 * Delete "X and state terrorism" articles are generally always a synthesis of sources to push a point of view that, in this case, India, are evil for supporting a group that some people think are terrorists (I think,in the seventies, India was pro-LTTE). The third section is about an ALLEGED terrorist attack in the planning (as opposed to one that has been carried out; if it hasn't been carried out, it could easily be anti-Indian propaganda.) All of this article can be covered in Research & Analysis Wing if it's encyclopedic; however, I doubt it. Sceptre (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again It's not only Raw it's more than that.Indian army is also Involved.-- yousaf465  15:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yousaf465- Your comments reek of POV-pushing and COI. Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe you're Pakistani. You should stay away from voting on this. For obvious reasons. You might have noticed, no Indian editor has voted here either. You seem to be familiar with Wiki policies. NPOV is a fundamental one of which you seem to have no clue. Anti  venin  15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was just replying to it.O.k will follow advice.Npov I know that is why I'm trying to present both view Points in the said article, you may check .-- yousaf465  15:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems simple to me, equivalent articles exist for other countries. Can't be merged only into RAW or India pages, best it's kept like this. Often when articles like this are delete, factual info can go astray. Muzher (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles exist for other countries so why delete it in the case of India? If this article is deleted, it will be nothing more than an act of deliberate censorship.. Mik357 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to caution about using the community process of consensus to justify including information that may or may not go astray or be perverted somehow in a different location in the future. I have no political interest in having this information squelched. I just want it clear, that we are discussing guidelines, notability and content... not nefarious plots to censor politically uncomfortable information. Many articles are targeted for political reasons, but that's what page protection is for.-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 16:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  — Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. except for the shady article at The Barossa (whose credibilty is in question), no reliable sources claim that all the events described in the article is state terrorism. It is a beautiful work of synthesis and original research putting together a lot of random and unrelated information under this invented title. may be try in a reliable journal first and in wikipedia later on. -- Docku:  What's up?  17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a noteworthy subject. However, the current content deals with something that is arguably of lower importance (except in terms of foreign policy) than other matters. Consider other aspects of state terrorism which include the low intensity warfare within parts of the country, most of which do not involve any other country. Similar low intensity warfare of course is being carried out by many other countries now, including Pakistan.


 * And, ofcourse there should be a corresponding article for the terrorism outside its borders that was / is being sponsored by Pakistan; i.e. within Punjab and Kashmir in India, and within Afghanistan. This is much better documented than anything carried out by India, if only because it has been much more extensive and much more successful. Imc (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and both topics could be covered in the articles State terrorism or State-sponsored terrorism, thus keeping the information preserved, without preemptively creating articles for the 200 or so countries who might have shady domestic intelligence operations. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete easy per WP:Original research. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP for a variety of reasons. 1. someone above said X and state terrorism is synthesis -- if that's the case then all the articles of said matter shouldnt be there. 2. as per the immediate above comment, the user doesnt explain what he finds violates the rules -- sources are there and they are not all Pakistani either. 3. To a neutral observer (ie- non-India/Pakistan) and anyone who studies IR, it is well documents that India too has perpetrated this. And there are more than whats listed too.
 * Update: Having been contacted by an advocate for the article, I spent some time digging through all of the 30 references/sources. I will not list them all here, but currently, refs 14-29 are actually all the same story, which appeared in syndication. This means that half of the 30 or so sources for this article implicating State terrorism in India all come from the same article regarding one incident. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 11:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Synthesis, also created by banned - Colombianstar is a STrider sock.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 07:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: The most significant portions of this article are detailed in much more depth here: 2009 Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricket team. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is well sourced also other countries also have same kind of Articles so. I dont see any point in deleting the article Oniongas (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't keep articles because "india blames Pakistan for state terrorism" and "Pakistan also blames India". We do however, delete if the article is entirely WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis as this one is. To understand these policies, one has to see how the sources have been manipulated to push a certain agenda. The conclusions that the article makes are from the author whereas the sources only deal with fact, hence synthesis. Also it seems that the creator has been proven to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update The quotes in my first sentence were from a comment by a banned user now removed in case anybody was wondering. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A bunch of synthesis. A lot of this is the "he said, she said" type of accusations between India and Pakistan. Given the history between India and Pakistan, it's obvious that there's a lot of bad blood between these two nations. Unless there's accusations being leveled by third-party governments or the United Nations, I don't see any merit for this article. Besides, some of this information seems to be misleading. The Pakistani government cleared the RAW of any involvement in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team. In addition, the LTTE and the BLA are militant, not terrorist organizations. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I add that the article's creator was a known Pakistani POV pusher, who I blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LTTE is a Know terrorist group.For which you may see ,,and .For BLA is also a Known Terroist group see and .For Pakistan reaction you may see the latest news .What you are referring to as clearing  was intial reaction and he said that "currently" we don't have such evidence.But after investigations have started he gave the above statement.Also Shabaz Sharif is confirming it again and again.There remains no question of non-existent of that report|title= Govt was warned about attack but did nothing.It presence has been confirmed over and over again|title=Warning of attacks on Sri Lanka cricket team was ignored.Report of Investigation is to published in a day or two.Today judicial commission will be completing it's investigation.It will confirm all the facts.-- yousaf465   04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see a valid argument for the LTTE, but nothing for the BLA from a governing third-party group (not the Guardian). In addition, the alleged Indian involvement was reported on March 4-5, but according to the Lahore attack article, Pakistani government officials ruled out Indian involvement in a statement made on March 6. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But his statement is dated March 9-10.-- yousaf465  04:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Strong Delete I am sorry to say but this is a bad faith article developed by Yousuf. The user was prevented at State-sponsored terrorism with his POV push ( he was even blocked for this) but now attempting a POV fork out of this article. MOst of the references are attributed to Pak dailies which cannot be attributed as Reliable sources in this case for the reason that is obvious. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this edit was it done in Good faith .-- yousaf465  04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has also been a lengthy ongoing discussion on my talk page with Yousaf, about these topics. I was not aware of the sockpuppet allegation until recently, so I was having an ongoing dialogue with Yousaf about the article. If it is at all relevant, please feel free to view it. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For RS you may see this discussion.-- yousaf465  06:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article looks to have strong sourcing, there doesn't seem to be any reason for deletion. Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article creator has used the sources only to synthesize the article to make it look legible. Salih  ( talk ) 09:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, sources 14-29 are actually all the exact same story, making it look like "an orgy of evidence." Understandably, this has been done because of this AfD discussion, but spending some time on the sources yields additional arguments for this being synthesis. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article seems like someone's original research. It also does not seem important/notable enough for an article of it's own, at least in my very humble opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. This article, if allowed to remain on WP, would become a place to push PoV. -- GP Pande  15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and based on non-reliable sources. None of the Reliable Sources used in the article refer to "Indian State Terrorism" or "Indian State Sponsored Terrorism" that I could see. Using only reliable sources there is no article. Priyanath talk 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Any article that contains even the slightest amount of original research and synthesis should have no place in Wikipedia if that article put a country in poor light. Salih  ( talk ) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV synthesis of biased sources. I wouldn't object to such articles if they had a backbone of neutral in-depth scholarly source(s), but basing them purely on partisan media reports and statement of politicians from rival nations makes them no better than a soapbox. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as articles doesn't have much PoV. 207.233.65.6 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The concept "India and state terrorism" is unique to Wikipedia (a google search reveals 7 articles, four of which are wikipedia) and an encyclopedia is not the place for new concepts. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - "Also, in our bid for the moral high ground, let's try not to forget that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE of neighboring Sri Lanka, one of the world's most deadly terrorist groups, were trained by the Indian Army" These are not my words.They exist on web.here . And "As he emphasised New Delhi’s support would be critical, but we should be fully aware of the India’s hand in destabilising Sri Lanka. Actually India should publicly regret her actions which created monstrous terrorist organisations which wrecked havoc in Sri Lanka." .This is not a unique concept]. "Indian trained LTTE terrorists have brought nothing but continuous mayhem to Sri Lanka destroying the fabric of the Sri Lankan society." .State-Sponsored Acts of Terrorism, Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing . “state terrorism” by India . Indian Involvement: State Sponsored Terrorism . Gujarat events are state terrorism: Top Hindu religious leader .Does it still constitute synthesis? Well this might not be enough! -- yousaf465  03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, you couldn't have picked a worse rag-tag group of sources to back up your claim. Half of the accusations come from officials on the opposing spectrum of an India- feud. I have yet to see any third-party groups publicly state that the Indian government had facilitated state terrorism. Your reasoning that India was involved in state terrorism in their early support of the LTTE is unfounded. This is simply guilt by association (no actual state terrorism has been alleged by third-party sources) except for the instance when Tamil Nadu government went rogue and started supporting the LTTE in the early 1990s. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources for this article are abysmal, as Nishkid64 points out. If only reliable sources were used, there would be no article, even with original research allowed. I assume the closing admin will take that into consideration. Priyanath talk 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that if we take examples from the world and attach them to a concept of our creation, that is WP:SYNTH. If the examples are attached to a concept by some other reliable source then we can write an article on the concept. In this case, the concept 'India and State Terrorism' is the creation of wikipedia editors and that is not something we should be doing. Research is best left to academic journals where they can be adequately peer reviewed. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but should be made clear it is alleged. Article does seem to make statements as if fact too much. Ninj4 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Ninj4 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: this is the editor's first edit in one and a half years. There's likely some off-wiki canvassing going on. Priyanath talk 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking the same thing...<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic;"> Wacko Jack <strong style="color:#D2B48C;">O   12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you make of this, it looks like User:Muzher(who has also !voted in this AFD) is a sock of User:Ninj4.<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic;"> Wacko Jack <strong style="color:#D2B48C;">O   14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongest Delete What is this?. LTTE started by Indira Gandhi?. Next you people will start false accusation on Mahamata Gandhi. This is far enough. This whole article is anti-india. This article fails many policy which many of them are available here. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read sources before forming a opinion. As far as third party sources are concerned I think I have provided enough on that too, but they are not something absolutely  necessary check WP:RS.-- yousaf465   06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of reliable sources, 90% of the sources cited in the article are Pakistani newspapers. They are not third-party sources with a NPOV which is absolutely essential. Anti  venin  13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, most of the sources are not neutral, and much of the article is original research.<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic;"> Wacko Jack <strong style="color:#D2B48C;">O   14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yousaf, your source for the Indira Gandhi-LTTE connection is an editorial from a Sri Lankan newspaper. Yes, you clearly understand WP:RS. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (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.