Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

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 - there are credible arguments by both sides of the discussion. Both the supporters and the detractors of the article are invited to work together in editing the text, thus ensuring WP:RS and WP:NPOV standards are maintained. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
As to the issue over the redlink, the Tamil camp have the numbers so they can do whatever they want, including voting in Tamil Tiger websites as RS YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: I think the point is, an AFD isn't a vote, so please don't close this with a one word "keep", "delete" or "no concensus" just by counting votes. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yellowmonkey, the LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist group. There are already lists and categories basically to that effect. Also, I don't think us members of the "Tamil camp" suggest that Eelamphile sources are reliable in any way.Pectoretalk 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Human Fraility, please create the red link article in a neutral tone using rs sources. No one is preventing you from doing it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI think this is the best option. The acts described are more of HR violations, than State terrorism.yousaf465
  • Strong Keep State terrorism is a type of human rights and should be identified as such. --Icemansatriani (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article adds nothing. "state terrorism" in this case is just a means of sensationalising grievances about government actions against secessionist wars. The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : wikipedia has a series of articles on State terrorism. All what Wikipedians have to worry about is is the article Encylopedic? does it bring information in a neutral tone ? does it use reliable sources ? I think the series ofarticles on State terrorism and this article as well meet that criteria. Personal attacks and attribution of intent is not good enough reason to delete articles. Taprobanus (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't a personal attack. I seemed to have accidentally left a space in the middle of your username. Sorry. You didn't respond to me when I tried to reach out to you anyway.. HumanFrailty (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have created Global Organization for People of Indian Origin some time back and know the Indian sub Continental politics better than many here. "The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites" is a baseless allegation and should be ignored by the Closing Admin.Hillcountries (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. "Allegations of X by Y" is the standard naming practice for problematic issues. I do not like this wording, but it appears the most NPOV title possible. I would support move to another title if a better suggestion is made. If the government's actions are covered in WP:RS, then they should be included. If RS happen to express 'how evil the government is', well, then this should be included as well. There is no policy that excessive negative press should be excluded from wikipedia.Jasy jatere (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there is already an article about supposed human rights abuses in Sri Lanka where taprobanus and satriani can bash the gosl all they want sourcing articles written by the Tamil disapora thousands of miles away from Sri Lanka. No need for two such articles. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to play into your annoying debate but I resent your comments. No one's bashing the GoSL, We are putting up legitimate accusations based on facts and reliable reports. If you consider the BBC, Amnesty International, HRW, Channel 4 news, the US and british parliaments, your own opposition government, your own Cheif Justice Judge, and anyone who accuses your government of human rights violations to be bias or tamil diaspora or "ltte supporters" and not "human rights supporters" then that just speaks to your own self serving bias. the idea that the whole world is out to get the GoSL "who didn't even kill one civilian (totally not an exaggeration)" despite all the satellite images, doctor reports, reports by the red cross, is a paranoid fringe theory. And since you seem so desiring to vulgarly debate this, why don't you and I have a debate on my talk page. --Icemansatriani (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone can go ahead and create the allegations of terrorism by the LTTE, although I think it's already covered in the main LTTE article. A number of Western organizations have made allegations that the GoSL has engaged in state terrorism. This is undeniable fact. Simply dismissing this argument because a corresponding article doesn't exist for the LTTE is a lame argument by any standard. Human Frailty, state terrorism is a completely different topic than human rights abuses. Don't even try to equate the two concepts. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant veiled personal attacks (saying I fail, my arguments are lame, etc..) are not appreciated. HumanFrailty (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are full of shit btw. HRW issued a statement today whining about the Refugees being held in concentration camps while ignoring the plans already underway to resettle them (August 7) - (August 31). HumanFrailty (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Veiled personal attacks? It is a lame argument; see WP:OSE. It's been established time and time again that discussing the state of article Y is irrelevant to the AfD on article X. And I never said you failed. I told you quite clearly that state terrorism is entirely unrelated to human rights abuses. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's detention camps, not concentration camps. Second, you should have realized that it was the fighting between the government and the LTTE that led to their displacement in the first place. Since we can hardly expect the LTTE to help out here, it's the GoSL's responsibility to relocate these individuals in a timely manner, an issue which seems to be the focus (that and the treatment of these refugees) of HRW's complaint. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the refugees are going to settled soon. I should say I don't see the GOSL as spotless. It's a pretty fascist organization but their crimes are overblown when discussed in the Western media. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Human rights abuses are violations of basic human rights and freedoms, such as the right to education and work. The allegations made against the Sri Lankan state go far beyond human rights abuses. The allegations fit one of the definition of terrorism: "politically motivated violence aimed at intimidating (terrorising) the civilian population". Sri Lanka is a state. These are allegations. Therefore we arrive at Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Wikipedia articles are meant to provide a balanced view of the subject in matter, not of everything. The fact this article doesn't mention the crimes committed by the LTTE is irrelevant, as is the fact that there may be other articles that portray the Sri Lankan state in a bad light. There is no need for the Allegations of terrorism by the LTTE article because, as we are repeatedly reminded in the introductory paragraph of dozens of articles, the LTTE is a proscribed terrorist organisation. Therefore the LTTE article itself has the allegations of terrorism by the LTTE. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Are you capable of having a civil discussion? Obi2canibe (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people at this AfD are only here to voice their political opinions. If you'd bother to check my background, you'd see that I really don't have a position in the matter, as I've fended off both pro-LTTE and pro-GoSL editors from pushing their POVs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My god man. Get off the politics already. People should be here to collaborate to Wikipedia in a neutral manner, not use this website as a soapbox to express their support of the GoSL. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Sorry. I'm frustrated right now. I'm probably responding to comments I've read elsewhere. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it was getting shut down anyway. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost all references cited in the article are primary sources, opinions pieces or interviews. While the subject may be notable as there are allegations, the neutrality is in dispute because of the sourcing and presentation of one point of view in an allegations article. A case where an article is beyond repair and will have to be completely rewritten to have any value. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Since there are allegations published in reliable sources, the page itself is most likely justified. Taprobanus is correct in noting that Terrorism != human rights abuse. However I have reservations about the title, since the LTTE page has no such thing either. "Oppression" might be a better word instead of terrorism in this instance, perhaps.Pectoretalk 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think Ive ever given a "per x" !vote before at AfD, but, as much of the discussion seems to have drifted off into nationalist bickering, I feel compelled to declare my support for Carlossuarez46's position that we shouldn't have articles on such allegations, whether they are about the British, American, Russian, North Korean, Libyan, Swiss, Andorran or Sri Lankan governments, or indeed about any non-governmental organisations. Such a title inherently invites POV editing and we end up with articles full of "he said, she said" content. Any encyclopedic information can be incorporated in a much more encyclopedic way into articles about the respective governments and any conflicts that they are involved in. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jasy jatere above remarks "Allegations of X by Y" is the standard naming practice for problematic issues." Well yes it is sometimes attempted - and is almost always a problem; the article gets nominated for deletion; the nationalists / separatists / partisans / unificationists / human rights advocates / far right wingers / insert as appropriate / etc pile in to the AfD discussion, add a range of keeps, an admin comes along and says 'no consensus', and on the circus goes. An article of this title should not be allowed to stand in its current form, it is blatant POV pushing. I have no problem with the content being on WP, but not by this name. WP is also not a place where we list everything we can find about something - it is an encyclopaedia, where the material is usefully summarised. This should be edited down and become sections in Sri Lankan civil war, Human rights in Sri Lanka and possibly notes in some other relevant articles. Of course, now is when someone jumps in and says "but Sri Lankan civil war is really long!" Yes, because it is in desperate need of an edit, as it is too full of detail that makes its writing style unencyclopedic.
  • To Icemansatriani, who says "State terrorism is a type of human rights and should be identified as such" - yes, but that is irrelevant to this article. See State terrorism, which is not being nominated for deletion, and I believe would not be.
  • To Hillcounties, who says that ""The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites" is a baseless allegation and should be ignored by the Closing Admin" - you are correct, but so what? That is not an argument to keep the article; I would suggest that, as you put no argument based on WP policy as to why it should be kept, your 'vote' should also be ignored.
  • To Nishkid, who remarks "Human Frailty, state terrorism is a completely different topic than human rights abuses. Don't even try to equate the two concepts". You may be right - on the other hand, several of the other 'keeps' make exactly the argument that state terrorism is a human rights issue and then use that as an argument to keep the article - i think Obi2canibe does this particularly well. To make both arguments as reasons to keep the present article is not a coherent position. Human rights in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan civil war between them can cover this article's content perfectly adequately, if editors would just make the effort, instead of spending time on POV forks.
  • To Human Frailty, you remark "NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are full of shit btw." While I understand your frustration with the way some people contribute to these discussions, that was one of several unhelpful contributions to this AfD. It is deliberately provoking people with a different view to your own. It suggests a love of argument more than a love of WP. I suggest you cool down the tone if you want this discussion resolved.
  • In response to Pectore, you are right about reliable sources, but I don't think that is in serious question here. The allegations are not at issue; the article itself is.

There are legitimate places for much of the writing in this article: they are blogs, NGO web pages, and letters to the UN and others. But not a stand-alone article like this. I beg an admin to take a decent stand on this stuff and recognise that consensus is not a vote. There are several cool and mderate heads here arguing for a delete/merge solution - Drmies, Carlossuarez46, yousaf465, SpacemanSpiff and Phil Bridger (as well as some lightly less moderate voices, YellowMonkey :-)). I do not think any compelling arguments have been made by the 'keep's, provided everyone understands that it is not being proposed to keep this material out of WP: just that it be in the civil war and human rights articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment There is fundamental flaw in the argument that State Terrorism is only related to the Sri Lankan civil war war and that it should be covered under that article. First rebuttal is that State terrorism allegations precede the civil war and that it covers issues beyond the civil war and secondly even within civil war article itself State terrorism would be a sub section and at some point it will become its own section because of size constraints. One cannot cover all salient aspects of a civil war and issues that out side of the civil war within that article and be consistant with WP:SIZE.State terrorism is a neutral term just like massacre, murder and such which have very encylopedic articles in Wikipedia not just in blogs and NGO statements. Taprobanus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep Firstly this is the 4th nomination of this article and not the 1st and it should have been mentioned in the AFD for normally users will be more inclined to keep if it is being renominated again and again.Nomination itself is technically wrong.

Secondly unlike other areas the European Union ,Ban Ki Moon along with Human rights Watch and Amnesty International are calling for a International probe into allegations of War crimes in the recent War. I will improve the article there are several sources and recent events are not incorprated. I agree with user Nishkid that state terrorism including War Crimes are different from human rights abuses.

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Pharaoh. Thank you for including those previous noms. Yes, it would have been helpful if they had been previously noted. In my case, however, it does not change my arguments or my my conclusion. Second, once again, the question of content (what the EU, Ban Ki Moon etc are doing) is not relevant to the question of whether this should be deleted or merged. It is not an issue of content (at least as far as I, and others like Snowolf below, are concerned). It is an issue of where that content should sit, and of ensuring it is encyclopedic in nature. I urge you not to improve this article: please improve Sri Lankan civil war and Human rights in Sri Lanka. If I get back here, I certainly will be seeking to do so by moving content out of this and into those, and if an admin will sanction delete or merge, I volunteer to help the transition. I am yet to see an argument about why state terorism allegations cannot be covered in the aforesaid two articles. To the 'keep' supporters, you need to address why this article is not POV in its title and scope, and I am not seeing that. Saying 'you can always create another article' is not an argument to keep this one. It is not an argument that this is NPOV. It is a wierd application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and does not advance this debate. Regards hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First I'd like to say your earlier reply to me was a misunderstanding of what I was getting at, I probably should have said the "State Terrorism situation in sri lanka is quite different from the human rights situation" as you seem to have thought I wasnt speaking with context to Sri Lanka. Replying to your recent comment State Terrorism is quite different the other two articles. Firstly, like Traprobanus said, it goes beyond the sri lanka conflict between the LTTE and the GoSL. Second it also different from Human Rights in Sri lanka since this article is specific to many acts of terrorism by the state, where as the Human rights in Sri Lanka article summarizes human rights violations by all groups. Even if you were to combine the articles, the resulting article would be too long. Similar articles exist for United states and other countries as well, and no issues have popped up there. The fact is, state terrorism is a different from human rights issues. And the title is not POV, if anything its the opposite. If it were "State Terrorism in Sri lanka" that would suggest that state terrorism was a fact, but the word allegations points out that these are criticisms and not something that wouldn't be disputed. Enough groups have accused SL of state terrorism that it merits the title. I'm surprised that you've suggested its POV in its scope, as I see no reason why the GoSL rebuttal (if they exist) to any claims of terrorism cannot be included. Am I missing something here??? --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ultimately, everything in this article that is deemed worthwhile should be merged with other existing articles, and this inherently POV article be deleted. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The fact that Sri Lanka is accused of state terrorism is undeniable. This issue is not even Tamil-Sinhala. Tens of thousands of innocent Sinhala kids were bumped off in the JVP crackdown. Thousands more innocent Tamil kids have been killed recently. Amnesty, HRW, Asian Human Rights Council have all noted the gross abuse of human rights. We have a number of paid government apologists here whose only job is protect government acts of cruelty and crime. Sinhala freedom (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - I don't know how many times I have to say this, the issue is not whether these allegations should be covered in wikipedia, but whether this article is POV and duplicating what should be in other locations. You are not assuming good faith, and your allegation, if it is directed at me is false. I suggest you check out my user page and my history of contributions, and consider how ridiculous an idea it is that I would be a "paid government apologist". I agree that the allegations should be covered in wikipedia, but your own post to this page indicates your own POV: "Tens of thousands of innocent Sinhala kids were bumped off in the JVP crackdown." Well maybe, maybe not, the issue can be covered using reliable sources and a neutral point of view, but that bears no relationship to your uncivil remarks here. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Tamil genocide, and state terrorism by ceylon is well documented. To deny this would be hide many crimes against humanity, and scum to the state's propaganda. This will totally hide the suffering of minorities at the hands of the Sri Lankan governments. --Natkeeran (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be an option. However it may simply be shifting the obvious POV problem from the title to the text. But I'm still not seeing a clear case against merging material into existing articles. Some want to argue that state terrorism is different to human rights breaches. Maybe - but does it really warrant an article because it would not be coherently addressed under the HR article and the civil war article, or indeed Government of Sri Lanka - which may be the best place for some of this. I may as well add that, Dodge rambler aside, i'm feeling pretty disappointed that everyone participating seems to have a view about the conflict in SR. I don't have a view about it, I'm not well informed about, I am just trying to see an application of WP policies and aims that will result in good articles and a strong reputation for reliability and objectivity. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now looked at those three articles. I think it is of concern that all but the Russian one are tagged as having multiple issues, with both the Pakistani and Iranian ones tagged as having neutrality issues. I'm not sure it solves the problem, but am happy to hear views of the other editors participating here. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Wikipedia manages to keep controversal articles such as Armenian genocide from getting out of control. It is a question of dedication and time. This particular article has gone through number of versions to take care of the tags. Before this AFD, it did not have any tags at all. Taprobanus (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanna point out to hamilton, I've already tried to respond to your arguements above, did you read them or not? was there something in my arguement you felt didn't satisfy your conditions. Also changing the name to Sri Lanka and State Terrorism, sounds like a good idea, but I recall reading many pro government editors dissaproved of that titled because they felt the fact the the charges were all allegations needed to be in the title. Also, this is too much to include in the Government of Sri lanka page, but summarizing a bit of it somewhere on that page and linking it to this page is fine. --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2009 (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.
  1. ^ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8054821.stm
  2. ^ [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6387782.ece
  3. ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/20096642943521220.html
  4. ^ [http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/08/sri-lanka-repeated-shelling-hospitals-evidence-war-crimes.