Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second 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. Lots of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK pointing, along with uncivil and off-topic rants. This is how we do not discuss an AfD. Sr13 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism in Sri Lanka

State terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". There simply are no citations given in this articles as such. All citations provided merely establish the occurrence of the given events, and not that they are so called acts of "State terrorism". To be very clear, and I hope everyone understands this, I am not disputing whether the incidents took place or not as mentioned in the article, but that categorizing them as "State terrorism" is the POV of individual Wikipedia editors. Also note that there is absolutely no proof that the government played a direct role in any of these incident. Most allegations are mere hearsay, and in any case, the acts of individual military personal cannot be called as "state sponsored". That makes this article a clear violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV , WP:V and especially WP:OR which explicitly states

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

As per these policies, Wikipedia editors cannot arbitrarily decide to call these incidents "State terrorism" and create such an article, and therefore the article should be deleted. snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please note, a related and similarly highly disputed and POV-titled template {{State terrorism in Sri Lanka}} was deleted following community consensus (discussion here), and replaced - per the opinion of the closing admin - by a non-biased, universally accepted template {{Sri Lankan Conflict}}. Similarly, there exists an article Human Rights in Sri Lanka where all the incidents in this article can be listed, without implicitly attempting to draw conclusions based on the apparent POV title of the article. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Comment Since the nomination I have tried to clean the article and remove any original research as well as cite with reputable sources that directly comment on aspects of State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Taprobanus 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The article is being edited by users which may and will degrade the quality of the article. Please take the look at the original version (when the AFD was nominated. Thanks Watchdogb 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Original Version when AFD was nominated.Lustead 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Conjecture should be highly discouraged. The effort to "connect the dots" across multiple incidents without reliable sourcing is counterproductive. --Aarktica 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please look at the article now, an attempt has been made notto connect the dots and only add incidents that have RS sources saying they are State terrorism. ThanksTaprobanus 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The controversial title of the article must go. While it may be appropriate for a term paper, it is hardly encyclopedic. Also, the introductory section — when measured against WP:LEAD — leaves much to be desired. --Aarktica 19:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I will work on the Lead but what you suggest the title should be ? Taprobanus 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I see some refferences in the article, that mean is not original research.--MariusM 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah only 6 sources for the whole article :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Before this article was degraded, it had over 20 sources now it has 32 sources of which over 20 attest for State terrorism Taprobanus 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lahiru, only 6 ? please look at the article now 32 sources of which many attribute state terrorism in Sri Lanka including Human Rights groups, News papers and even governments. ThanksTaprobanus 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And even those only allege state terrorism. Hardly any credible info on "State Terrorism" conducted by SLGOV there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubuman (talk • contribs)

Actually if you read the sources, there are many human rights groups which state the Sri Lankan Army was behind these massacres. And since they are controlled by the state and commiting terrorist acts... is it not state terrorism? Thusiyan 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please go through the nomination, it says No independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination is flawed as the article now has 32 sources of which many attest to state terrorismTaprobanus 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say that Lahiru. Check the other state terrorism articles. Please show me where independent organization which will qualify as a reliable source has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism" in each of the articles Watchdogb 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Snowfold, additionally the so called "refernces" on most occasions do not adhere to the wikipedia policy of reliable sources.Pubuman 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you look at the article again, it has 32 references, tell me which ones are not RS ?Taprobanus 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep please delete this article along with the holocaust, these never happened and have no connection with the government!! also read holocaust denial.--131.111.235.31 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

— 131.111.235.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy Delete Per nomination.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I too feel, this article should be deleted along with the holocaust as these have never happened or have no connection with the Nazi government!! I also suggest to read holocaust denial.Lustead 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Above user is a single issue person with absolutely no good contribution to wikipedia. for a new user ,he seems to know quite a lot of inside inside work of Wikipedia.I haven't seen that from a newbie at all!! As we see from his above remarks ,this person has shown us he is here for only one reason, spread anti Sinhalese/Sri Lankan sentiments. His total lack of knowledge of present situation in SL,or even Nazi holocaust for that matter, is highly comical.I would like to ask Admins to take a good look at his contributions and his record, before counting his vote.thanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:-Your observations are unncessary at this point after I have been accepted as an involved party for Chemmani Massgrave Mediation. The intention why you revert ignoring the Thusiyan (talk · contribs) explanation for keeping the image is still unknown while the similar images attributed to LTTE attacks were kept here.Lustead 15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me have ever even had a look at the TITLE of the article ? How on earth that picture prove State terrorism ? Did the state asked EDPD soldiers to kill them ? Did the sate issue order to kill them ? please use

You can never compare any incident happening in Sri Lanka to Nazi holocaust. It is infamous that terrorists and underworld gangsters are behind this. Nirvanatoday 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Have you any evidence to support your argument?Lustead 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you have any evidence break Nirvanatoday's argument? If yes pls go ahead and cite that on the article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Available evidences and the circumstances are leaning to Government / Forces or the negligence of them to prevent those incidents.Lustead 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a true fact that the Sri Lankan Army committed some horrible massacres. Again, they are controlled by the state, thus this is state terrorism. And yes there are dozens of human rights group and witnesses who have placed blame firmly on the armed forces. Pinning the blame on "underworld gangsters" is foolish.Thusiyan 19:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I strongly feel that somebody or some organization is behind this! Recent events unfolded in International arena of politics, I feel SLGOV is doing the best governance comparing to other governments. Taking into account of the reliability of this article, you have a limited number of ref and most of them are also unreliable sources. Nirvanatoday 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The subject is on State terrorism in Sri Lanka and not the governance of the present government.Lustead 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely keep. The fact of the matter is, there are elements of the state behind these events, such as Black July. The massacres committed by the Sri Lankan Army, in essence is state terrorism! The facts are, the state has been behind riots. There can be no argument with that. Another fact is, the Sri Lankan Army has committed human rights abuses, which since they are state controlled, amount to STATE TERRORISM. There should be no question over whether this should be deleted or not. Deleting it would really be a big mistake. Thusiyan 18:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note : Possible Single purpose account — Thusiyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note The above accusation is false. This user has had many contribution before this AFD was nomiated. Please take a good look at his contribution and the earliest edit by this user. He is not SP because he was here before the AFD. Also Kerr avon has made a mistake... he is pointing at the wrong user. Use this insted and you will see his many contributions and his date of registry Thusiyan Watchdogb 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at his contribution,started from 16 th may ,of course from the State terrorism article.He has no contributions outside a couple of articles,author has taken a keen interest in deleting accusations against LTTE ,even without reading citations.Has shown is extreme pro-LTTE stance already.There is no doubt that these kind of editors bring more harm to Wikipedia, or I would say these kind of sock-puppets bring shame to Wikipedia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not attack another usr Iwazaki. Accusing another person is not allowed here unless you have proof for their sock puppetry. Also If I were you I would take a close look at your own contribution and your bias towards the SLF and the SLG so if you are allowed to stay here then so will he thanks Watchdogb 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep these "State terrorism in Fooland" articles are kept by precedent. Clean it up if necessary, but don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve Reliable sources exist and can be utilised successfully, I would like to highlight the success of other similar pages in maintaining a strong NPOV and verified article. --Sharz 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Sinharaja2002 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is Political and inadequately supported by references to Peer reviewed evaluations. This kind of article brings down the standing of the Wikipedia enterprise to the level of a partisan political tabloid. It is best to delete it as it is now in an unrecoverable state.Bodhi dhana 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Professor, can you look athe article now because since you voted we have tried to improve the contents. ThanksTaprobanus 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve Wikipedia ADMINISTRATORS, please do not remove this article. If you look at the person/people who created this nomination you can see that they are on a mission of Ethnic Cleansing of tamil articles in wikipedia and hiding/distorting the truth. In his page it says the person is male/supports srilankan troops/opposes LTTE, how can anything coming form this person in articles concerning the war be neutral NPOV. He should be editing other articles where he has no personal interest in. (this is not a personal attack, it is an obeservation and recommendation) --12345ka 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

— 12345ka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: This article depends only upon 6 sources and out of these sources there are two sources which saying government does not take the responsibility of those incidents. And even two of them are the books which are not available on cyber space. So this article is based solely on an Original Research and it is an LTTE point of view (POV) pushing biased anti government article which contains individual editors point of views. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stong and speedy delete - LTTE thinks the SriLankan govt., is terrorist. Bin Laden thinks the American govt., is terrorist. So? The fact is that both Sri Lanka and USA are members of the UN and Prabhakaran and Laden(cold blooded murderers as they are) are NOT. This is not even a POV fork. Its outright trash and nonsense. We cant have wikipedia articles every time somebody goes nuts and starts branding elected, democratic governments as terrorists.Sarvagnya 17:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:-

So where do you stand on State terrorism by the United States?. According to your comment either Federal government of the United States is not democratic or Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda helped State terrorism by the United States from AFD. Lustead 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is also a POV fork and as you can see disputes are raging on that article also. It also has multiple tags sitting on it. It may only be matter of time before somebody noms it for deletion. So dont point to that article as if it was an FA. Having said that, even that article has more encyclopedic credibility than this one because, there, some of the critics include Presidents and Vice-Presidents of bonafide countries and not just a driveling self styled gangleader of a rag-tag bunch of outlawed bandits operating out of jungle hideouts. Sarvagnya 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let there be muliple tags sitting on. But that doesn’t mean that that will be deleted in the near future. That is your highly POV observation. Leaving State Terrorism out of wikipedia will only lead to a outright Rwandan Genocide in the corner of the world in future and many hundreds of thousands people will be massacred before the UN and other international watch-dogs rush to the scene. Further, your comment “self-styled gangleader of a rag-tag bunch of outlawed bandits operating out of jungle hideout’’ is irrelevant to the subject State terrorism in Sri Lanka which we are discussing here. We are discussing here some mechanism which is protected by some out-ward democractic set-up but failing for a real multi-ethnic democratic political participation and spreading state sponsored terror for political solutions.Lustead 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Its not the LTTE who are the only ones accusing GOSL of State terrorism. Also it doesn't matter if there are tags sitting on the article. If you follow any of the SL related articles (specially political) you can see many tags sitting there. Why don't we delete that also ? Watchdogb 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sarvagnya 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve First off there are some RS in the article so its not all OR . Secondly It is a well know fact that the governemnt of Srilanka is supporting a renegade group called "Karuna Fraction" who are terrorising people in Srilanka. The disapearence has reached new hights in Srilanka and the HR violations (mind you by both sides to the conflict) has also increased. This article needs to be improved but not deleted. Watchdogb 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Above user could well be the banned User Elalan (talk · contribs). Has similar interests, similar writing skills,similar hatred towards Sri Lanka,see this tirade. And most importantly his liking for letter b is amazing. Remember Elalan's sock-puppeteer Trincoman (talk · contribs) also has a b at the end of his name.ThanksIwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Funny that you accuse me even after an admin has warned you. I think I will take this out with an admin. In the mean time how about you report me and see what happens ? Your false claims are very funny. Go ahead and ask for a check user. thanks Watchdogb 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Oh isn't it an Original Research? The whole 18 passages of the article depends on only 6 references. Is it a known fact that SL GOV supporting to the Karuna Fraction? But unfortunately the known facts should too have WP:RS to backup it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well I dunno I think Mr. Rock is enough of a RS for us to link the Gosl and the Karuna fraction. If you still need proof's like white vans abducting people and going thru army chekpoints (without a licence plate) I can give that too. Or if you want RS on how SLA saying "They will bring them back after talking to them" I can also give that.

Also there have been many insidents where the people violating Human Rights are caught but then they do not recieve any punishment. Sometimes they have even be promoted to a higher rank.

Here is a direct quote from Amnesty International Amnesty International welcomes these initial steps but notes that there is a disturbing pattern of incomplete or ineffective investigations by the government, with the result that perpetrators of such violence generally operate with impunity. In accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Sri Lanka has ratified, the government must carry out independent, impartial and effective investigations into all killings; the results of these investigations should be made public, and those found responsible for the attacks must be brought to justice. Without effective investigations and prosecutions, the cycle of retaliatory violence that so endangers the lives of civilians is likely to escalate. here

CommentSri Lankan government may be killing people and its army may be committing massacres helping paramilitaries to abduct people by white vans, black vans, minivans, white buses, white trains or by aircrafts or anything, but here in wikipedia everything should have to be verified with reliable sources but not with someone else's personal opinion. This article has only 6 sources for the whole 18 passages. So it's a clear violation of WP:OR. And here we are talking about an article deletion but not about the Human Rights Violations so stick to topic. Even if you stand up side down and say the Sri Lanakan government is doing human rights violation there's no use because this is a debate on article deletion and not a debate on anybody's HR violation. Hope everyone understands. Thank you. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to ask how India can be branded into State terrorism and not Sri Lanka. Take a look at this article please. How can this article here be still on wikipedia with soo little source? So I guess whats true for other articles are false for State terrorism in SL. Specially seeing that the argument for deletion of this article is its source or atleast its "lack" of sources. How about this Where it basically links State terrorism to the torture and killing by the Army. Or hare where the army killed the civilians (does not say that the government gave direct order to kill these people does it ?). If that is accepted as state terrorism then I don't see why when a Srilankan Army personnel kills civilians its not state terrorism. Are we here in wikipedia saying that the life of Tamil people are less worthy than the life of people in other countries who have suffered in the same fate by the Army of their country? All I can see is that there is a pattern in the State terrorism series. Nothing directly links the government of many of these country to State terrorism but they are still around in wikipedia with the name of "State Terrorism". Then why would we want to delete Srilankan State terrorism on the basis that no one (who are RS ) has gone the distance and called it for what it is? Watchdogb 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Acording to wikipedia "State terrorism is a controversial term, which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state". It does go on to say this is a controversial term, but the fact of the matter is, this is exactly what has been happening in Sri Lanka. Deleting this article would be denial and it truly would be a sad day Thusiyan 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since Lahiru seem to deny the fact that SL forces are helping Karuna fraction. I got proof. I think this should pretty much close the deal on the fact that there exist State Terrorism in Srilanka because they Srilankan Forces are obviously action from orders from the Government. Watchdogb 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not deny and I'm not accept that too but I'm sticking to the afd's topic, not for the allegations of HR vios. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Who says there are no reliable sources?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6144200.stm - BBC - United Nations(UN)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/04/25/slanka13262.htm -Human Rights Watch (HRW)

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/lka-summary-eng -Amnesty International (AI)

Please answer these alligations if you are voting Delete, i would love to hear them. Please be constructive and give sources which are more reliable than the BBC,UN,AI. No personal ramblings. I would also suggest a new article on Human Rights Violations in Sri Lanka by GOSL/LTTE.--131.111.8.104 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

— 131.111.8.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't know how Iwazaki magically pulls numbers. But if you check this users contribs then you will see his ip has more contribs than just this topic. Watchdogb 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times are you going to say Keep from IPs?? and I couldn't find any of your reliable sources on the article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:: Personal attacks are frowned upon, don't resort to Ad hominem. i.e replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.--12345ka 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many we are going to add. As you can see the two "IP" that are given are different. This user seems to have contributed before this AFD was created and have edited in articles that has nothing to do with Srilankan Related Articles. So this is not a sockpuppet attemp as you seem to suggest Lahiru. Thanks Watchdogb 01:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times these IPs and SPAs said Keep because the closing admin will count only the well established users. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Than well-established but less-informed users, well-informed IPs, will enlighten more the closing admin on the topic, we have taken for discussion.Lustead 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - User:131.111.8.104, your sources dont even use the word "terrorism" in their articles. They speak of some cases(isolated perhaps) of alleged breakdown of law and order. That is not "State terrorism". This article seems to be a particularly bad case of improper synthesis of sources. And worse, many of the 'sources' used in the article are not even reliable given their blatantly partisan nature. Sarvagnya 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Do you think this Source is an unreliable one? You can’t wait for others to word it exactly as ‘Terrorism’, but if those acts qualify to the definitions that has been accepted as State Terrorism in wikipedia, they are also coming various States-Sponsored Terrorism. You can’t wait for the right ‘word’ for interpreting things, then the Governments also before they brand various organizations as terrorists organizations they should have discussed with an International Arbitration Committee, a special one or by utilizing the available judiciary establishments.Lustead 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please list what are the incidents in the article you think, should definitely belong to state terrorism..We already have an article for human rights in Sri Lanka and criticism sections under STF and other forces,and do you think we should repeat the same incidents 10 times in Wikepedia because it might make LTTE and other racist tamil elements happy ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you all can bring everything under Sri Lankan Civil War or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, you don't need separately the following various atrocities related to LTTE;

Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE

List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Your edits in various Sri Lanka related articles shows, you only promote a violent anti-tamil stance.Lustead 03:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

well,i am for　having just one article..Since you are very very new here, why don't read the talk pages of those articles to see why we are having 3 instead of one article ?? Read first before crying like a little boy here.And thanks for showing us thatit was you who voted 3 times ,with two different IP's here. You have actually made admins work much easier. Thanks for dearly admitting your sock-puppeting and vote stacking.Next, remember unlike you,who have had absolutely no contributions here, I have contributed to variety of articles and none of them is anti-tamil or anti-anything. Instead of telling stories,could you please show me where i have been anti-tamil? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When you all clever big boys want, you all know how cleverly to justify something. All your explanations are biased. I suggest if you want to amalgamate State terrorism in Sri Lanka with something else, then no reason you can’t expect to keep those three separately as well. But State Terrorism in Sri Lanka is a unique issue and at any level it can’t be amalgamated with other articles.

You earlier accused another user here [1] and now you are accusing me with various IP addresses.

And ??? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer ends there, there is nothing to expect more.Lustead 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A few examples are here to sense you are an adamant anti-tamil.[2][3][4][5]Lustead 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse , but I do not see any ant-tamil there..If you see them could you please specify what is anti-tamil, then we can move the discussion to your talk page and proceed with our discussion.So, please be specific rather than crying like a child. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Those who are in a Paranoia state generally won't accept others view point. Discussing with them will make more complication at one-to-one level without third party involvement.Lustead 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion This user must be reported, i do not like to use the word, but from his edits on many tamil based articles he is clearly racist. And from above evidence clearly on a mission of Ethnic Cleansing of wikipedia. Such behaviour not only reflects badly on wikipedia but also peace loving Sinhala majority. I also wonder how he is an expert on tamil history and culture to be editing so many tamil articles such as Tamil language, Ancient Tamil country, Sri Lanka Tamils, Jaffna Kingdom, List of Tamils of Sri Lanka --12345ka 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Suggestion.. Why don't we move my anti-tamil claims to mr Lustead s talk page.there we can discuss.. So far,neither you nor him,has given a single proof..Thoroughly disappointing I would say, considering how blind and fast those accusations came against me..It makes me even surprising that, these accusations come from possible sock-puppets, people with no track-record, no proper editing, before this debate. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CommentSri Lankan government may be killing people and its army may be committing massacres helping paramilitaries to abduct people by white vans, black vans, minivans, white buses, white trains or by aircrafts or anything, but here in wikipedia everything should have to be verified with reliable sources but not with someone else's personal opinion. This article has only 6 sources for the whole 18 passages. So it's a clear violation of WP:OR. And here we are talking about an article deletion but not about the Human Rights Violations so stick to topic. Even if you stand up side down and say the Sri Lanakan government is doing human rights violation there's no use because this is a debate on article deletion and not a debate on anybody's HR violation. Hope everyone understands. Thank you. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Then this article should be improved, not deleted.Lustead 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For that what I would like say is Too Late, because the current status of the article is un encyclopedic piece of crap and waste of server space. Sorry to say that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Server space is not an issue during debate for AFD, I also find it highly dubious that you, a proponent of this AFD have been actively editing the article during the process and as this diff demonstrates have deleted some of the reliable sources, as well as some of the more unreliable one, for example, the Chicago Press source. --Sharz 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I deleted and formatted the page. Most of the sources were dead links and some were cited by some gentlemen which do not contain a single word regarding the topic. Don't know whether it was done on purposely, so lets assume good faith on it. If you are looking for the Chicago Press book, have a look at the top of the page and you will find it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru I dont understand what you are saying. There are proof for the the SL forces helping Karuna. Karuna opperate in SLA controlled areas. This is enough to link the government is actually using Karuna to terrorize people. IF you want proof to that then I can do give you many. Remember MR.Rock is a RS. It doesn't matter if the SLG says that he is not but he is a neutral sorce from Canada . The AI has said "notes that there is a disturbing pattern of incomplete or ineffective investigations by the government, with the result that perpetrators of such violence generally operate with impunity". I think this is enough of a argunment for state terrorism in Srilanka. Watchdogb 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Lahiru - understandable mistake, however some of those links were still in action and it wasn't established that they were unreliable or un-related, if an editor put them there, then its probably for a good reason. --Sharz 14:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

here is more that relates to State terrorism : There were numerous reports of torture in police custody. According to the non-governmental Asian Commission for Human Rights, two people died in custody in 2006. Torture in police custody... In July presidential directives were re-issued requiring the security forces to issue receipts for arrested persons and inform the Human Rights Commission within 48 hours. The Commission reported 419 enforced disappearances in Jaffna for the first half of 2006. A local non-governmental organization recorded 277 abductions from April to September. Disappearances and abductions were attributed to several forces, including the security forces, the LTTE and the Karuna group All groups involved in dissapearences. The number of unlawful killings dramatically increased. Several hundred extrajudicial killings were reported. They were carried out by forces of the government, the Karuna group, a splinter group of the LTTE reportedly co-operating with government forces, the LTTE and other armed opposition groups Unlawful killings and impunity by again all forces. I can give more but I would much raher give the link. Watchdogb 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doggy read the nom carefully. It says I am not disputing whether the incidents took place....., and as I said on here Sri Lankan government may spreading state terrorism. But we're here to talk about an article deletion. So stick to the topic and if you like to publish your reasearches you know where to go. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Sharz. Yeah there was some live reliable links but, I'm saying this very responsibly those links was totally unrelated to the relevant section. If you go through the history page and check my edits on May 20th and May 23rd. Then you can understand what I meant by. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)"torture in police custody" - are you kidding me?! are you trying to label torture in police custody as "state terrorism"? for all you know, its just a corrupt police officer or perhaps even a terrorist who deserved to be tortured. "abductions "attributed" to.." - sorry.. we dont write articles on hearsay. that is left to the tabloids. Sarvagnya 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You read carefully there are some more things attributed to State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Until you prove someone is a culprit you can't torture anyone. If a state mechanism is involving those tortures irrespective of their individual or collective nature they all are concerned with the state atrocities.Lustead 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this toture has allways been happening. There is a close link between the torture in police custody and State terrorism. Even if there wasn't I would like to ask you why these officials have not been inspected and punished for their corruption? Shall I start with the Welikada prison massacre. Where no one has been convicted ? Want reference ?

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

With that aside take a close look at all the other articles in the State terrorism series. They come from the fact that the Army does civilian massacure and/or kills civilians. Nothing in the articles ever show that the Government ordered these killings. Yet they are branded as State terrorism. So I conclude that since there are articles of this nature on wikipedia under State terrorism then Srilankan article will also remain in wikipedia. Plus helping Karuna fraction is still state terrorism. I don't want to hear anything about "some corrupt officer" because thats a pathetic joke. See if you know that Karuna is actually running for the election then it makes sence that the government is actually supporting them. Further my argument about X article existing might not be valid but the fact that they are branded State terrorism is what makes my argument strong. Not to mention that those branded articles have been nominated for AFD and yet they remain on wikipedia ALSO addes point to my argument. Lastly [ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS] is not a guideline. That means I can do it without a problem. So befre you try to make my arguments faulty pointing to nonsence please try to take care of other points that I have put forth. Thanks Watchdogb 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sarvagnya 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And a simple calculation too, 6 RS + 18 passages + 18 {{fact}} tags = WP:OR --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No Lahiru. Its does not = OR. And it for sure doesn't equal a delete either. However it does mean that the article needs imporvement as I have suggested. Thanks Watchdogb 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you think that Sockpuppets are in use, then I strongly suggest you request a check-user after providing evidence of said violations of WP, if proven correct sock-puppet will probably be banned, controller will probably be banned for using a sock-puppet in an AFD and their votes will be voided in the debate. If your not willing to do this, you should probably stop accusing people of being sockpuppets, the same goes for Iwazaki and his accusations further up on the page.--Sharz 06:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename - it seems no real objection exists to the content, only to the title. While I personally think article titling should just be What would you call it? it's obvious some people don't like that - of course, if it's renamed, the rest of the comparable articles need to be renamed too. WilyD 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No real objection exists to the content Why not? It's a clear violation on WP:OR. So are you proposing to keep this WP:OR vio by renaming it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the once that I have given not enough ? The fact that I am writing here is because I was going to improve the article but never got the time. Now I am not editing for the time being because I want to resolve this issue here first then start the work on it. Watchdogb 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the content violates OR (maybe a few bits, but it doesn't overall). It certainly is sourced. WilyD 16:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve as per Watchdogb. Praveen 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

- Title is wrong, this article has been nominated for deletion thrice, so its the Third Nomination not the second, this should be factored into consideration when making judgement whether to keep or discard this article.--Sharz 14:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any encyclopaedic and sourced information into existing and neutrally-titled entries. The events are very important, but the article has existed long enough that excellent sourcing should already exist for such a controversial topic. Tewfik^Talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve as per User:WatchdogbTaprobanus 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment User:Watchdogb has begged above user to come and help(he called it contribute). see this for further details. Vote stacking ?? !!Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the creator of this article and by wiki process I should have been notified by the nominator as I was in Wiki break, i would have come here anyway with or without the notice on my talk page as I have this under my watch list. Thanks Taprobanus 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

- Alligations of sockpupetry is a serious matter by user:Iwazaki and user:Lahiru_k, please note that the user lahiru_k [21] has already been proven to have various sockpuppets himself for *votestacking* by Administrators. No further comments, i rest my case. :) --12345ka 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note : Possible Single purpose account — 12345ka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedily Delete: There are a lot of original research without claims to back them up. There are only 6 references to the entire article. Allegations against that the sovereign government of Sri lanka is engaging in terrorist activities is potentially libellous without confirmed reliable sources. The article should be deleted speedily, to prevent edit warring and to prevent people with vested interest and supporters of the LTTE terrorists from using the wikipedia to publish articles defamatory of the Sri lankan government.

The closing admin should also kindly note the large amount of SPA's and ANON's who have voted and consider the possibility of vote stacking.Kerr avon 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE:

User:Netmonger and User:Kerr avon are SPAs or Sockpuppets of User:Lahiru k. Admin please take extra care. Thanks. Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet accusation on me!! I was waiting till this moment arive for clearify my name from these sockpuppeting accusations (from earlyer case too). Take your evidence to the WP:SSP and within 10 days to the WP:RFCU, then I will disseminate my evidence. Happy Editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For further reading, User talk:Lahiru k/Archive 3#Fixing links. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is your explanation here?[22]Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

note I have added more to the article now. More RS has been added. People might want to take a look at the article before complaining about the RS. Also note that there are 14 RS and 2 books (which are obviously RS) which are presented in this article. Thus bringing the RS to 16 and not 6 like users suggest. I don't know how people saw only 6 RS when there are more than 16 RS presented. Watchdogb 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop harping on RS so much. The article needs to be deleted simply because the very title is OR. None of your RSes have accused the Sri Lankan government of "terrorism". It is completely your own fabrication and POV. Since the title is all wrong, the next option would be to move it to a less POV and less libelous title. But no. We already have an article about "Human rights in Sri Lanka" and several other related articles. Dont we? So if you have any encyclopedic, non-OR, cited content here, feel free to move it to those other article and weave it into those articles NPOV way. And mind you, even the accusations that have been hurled at the Sri Lankan government are just that - "accusations" or "allegations". Not proven facts. As for the LTTE, scores of uninvolved, neutral countries have branded them as "terrorists". Enough said. Sarvagnya 08:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if the title is wrong then you just defeated the AFD. An article does not get AFD for having a POV/ wrong title. Secondle my sources very well shows the state terrorism. 1) Helping TMVP is STATE terrorism and the I got a human rights watch saying that the gvernment is actually heping them. 2) Death threats by the defence minister IS STATE TERRORISM. 3)Forcefully moving people to a place where they are threatned is also state terrorism. 4) Burning Jaffna liberary is also State terrorism as they mob was asked to do it by the governing party. Watchdogb 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because US government branded IRA as Terrorist organization doesn’t mean that IRA is terrorist organization because the same US government lifted the IRA’s ban as a Terrorist organization later on[23]. When LTTE was branded as a Terrorist organization, the Nordic countries were against initially[24]. The Conflict of interest among the countries over the time and the issues concerned leading to the point that whether they are right in branding or not branding the atrocities, violations and killings of the rebel groups or the states into “Terrorism” or “State Terrorism”. Wikipedia can use the word “State Terrorism” to those atrocities, violations and killing by the States on the grounds that the similar events and incidents by the rebel organizations have been considered by the concerned neutral Governments and European Union as “Terrorism”. Whether the term “State Terrorism” is there or not in the WP:RS is immaterial.Lustead 14:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Watchdogb above. 68.89.128.160 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

— 68.89.128.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep as per Watchdogb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.251.9 (talk • contribs)

— 64.34.251.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy Delete Most of the incidents included in this article come from either Pro-LTTE sources, i.e not an independent, neutral organization or simply hearsay. Also it includes from start to end mostly, accusations towards a democratically, elected government from the point of view of an internationally identified 'terrorist group' called the LTTE. Keeping this type of articles any longer will bring down the standard of the articles on Wikipedia. Therefore, I strongly suggest that this article be deleted. Wiki 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user was solicited to come here to vote. See diff here Taprobanus 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru_k may have asked for my input on this topic, since I frequently edit Sri Lanka related articles, but he hasn't asked me to vote for it as a "Delete". I hope you can read something carefully, before coming in to conclusions. Wiki 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And how about you ?? Didn't you get a friendly message from a watchdog who uses a B at the end?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

comment This user has not even given a good argument against this article. Take a look at the article now and see how many RS source have called it STATE TERRORISM. This article is very well written now. Please take a look now before you vote thanks Watchdogb 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is open terrorism and use of extra judical killing have been going since the days of JRJ.Hence it should be kept.It is open fact no one has tried in a court and convicted for any crime.There is no law in Sri Lanka it is State terrorism Harlowraman 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many propaganda Eelam nonsense sited alleging this. There are many legitimate complaints as well. State terrorism in Fooland seems to be a rarely used but legitimate series.Bakaman 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- This is a real intention to disgrace our long heritaged well established better cultured motherland. LTTE's atrcites are never talked by these guys as they need to earn money by selling wars and peace to the countries where their agents have creatred that worse condition. Sri lanka is maintaining it's humanity towards her children (All Sri Lankans Sinhala Tamil Muslims and other citizens) : per nom. Dilip Fernando 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Voted twice Taprobanus 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Funny that this user has not contributed much to any article and has been away for about 2 months and now he shows up all of a sudden and votes. I think there is something fishey here... — Dilipfernando (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or a Sockpuppet. Admin please take special care here. Thanks Watchdogb 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nomination or Rename "Alleged State Terrorism in Sri Lanka ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So in effect you are voting to keep it if the name can be changed ? ThanksTaprobanus 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Delete as per nom is not true. How can you say this article is OR when there are LOTS and LOTS of RS there. Also the article now has enough RS calling this state terror. That initself is proof that the article is not OR and that the nomination is false now. As for WP:V and WP:NPOV and article does not get nominated for violating NPOV. Keep that in mindWatchdogb 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE:

User:Netmonger and User:Kerr avon are SPAs or Sockpuppets of User:Lahiru k. Admin please take extra care. Thanks. Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet accusation on me!! I was waiting till this moment arive for clearify my name from these sockpuppeting accusations (from earlyer case too). Take your evidence to the WP:SSP and within 10 days to the WP:RFCU, then I will disseminate my evidence. Happy Editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is your explanation here?[25]Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For further reading, User talk:Lahiru k/Archive 3#Fixing links. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your refered reading is nothing to do with this incident[26].Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? Then go ahead Mr.SPA --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer clearly shows your attitude in wikipedia.Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe point is that the title wording "State terrorism" is subjective and is POV, and violates wikipedia's WP:NPOV WP:OR amongst others and is a potentially libellous allegation. For example the following link used as source <http://members.tripod.com/~jvp_srilanka/history/71st1.html> is a personal webpage and cannot be used as a reference, others are eelamist sites and others whose neurality is questioned. Since there is no unbiased third party alleging state terrorism, I strongly urge the closing admin to not to permit the continuation of the rape of a sovereign government by LTTE terrorist supporters and eelamist's using wikipedia as a propaganda instrument. The best solution is to delete the article for being POV and if there is any information to move it to a article on human rights in sri lanka.Kerr avon 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply The important one is not the rape of a sovereign government(by LTTE terrorist supporters and eelamist's?????????) using wikipedia as a propaganda instrument, but the use of wikipedia as a Siren to the world in informing how it could help the suffering masses of Sri Lanka from the State Terrorism. Sri Lankan Conflict Watcher 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Excuse me ? You say that there are no RS calling this state terrorism ? I can allready see some on the article. If you think anything that goes against the SLG is not RS then I think you are mistaken. Closing admin should take a look at the article before making a decision. There are a lot more RS there now and the TITLE is not POV pushing. Also nomination is false now because of the fact that the article has got a lot of RS and even RS that say that these acts are state terrorism. Watchdogb 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:V and especially WP:OR have been proven wrong now and thus the nomination is wrong. Also the fact that there is allready many RS calling State terror and have been provided here shows that the original nomination is allready defeated. Please take a look. Lastly WP:NPOV does not mean that the article should be deleted. It rather means that the article should be wikified. However, as it stands now the article is pretty NPOV. Watchdogb 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most of you keep forgeting that this is a encylopedia project not another silly Sri Lankan website that spews venom on either side. Here we say what others say, we dont make up anything even if it is true. As long as we find RS sources saying that State terrorism is practiced in Sri Lanka then we should and can document it in Wikipedia without people yelling at each other as terrorists and genocide lovers. Even if the article is deleted today, it will come up again with additional sources coming on line. The best way to deal with wikipedia is to collaborate not indulge in conflict. Thanks Taprobanus 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment added by snowulf is again flawed. There are many sources citing this as "state terror". With these sources presented we do not need to "connect dots". We are documenting what RS has called state terrrorism. Human rights in srilanka is a different article all the same. It would not make any sence to add these info there specially after giving RS on state terrorism. Watchdogb 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep based on the following evaluation:
  1. Is the article about a subject that is notable? Yes.
  2. Does the article contain original research? Yes.
     1. Is the subject of the article or its content entirely or inherently original research? No.
  3. Does the article contain non-neutral content? Yes.
     1. Is the article inherently or irreparably POV? No.
  4. Is the title of the article neutral? Irrelevant. A name change requires talk page discussion and perhaps a requested move, not AfD. I would say that the current title is appropriate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize ...". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:44, 29 May 2007 (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.