Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state-sponsored terrorism

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

India and state-sponsored terrorism

The result was No valid result. This is not even a "no consensus", it's just no discernible result at all. This whole AfD has been just as big a mess as the article itself, and very little in it can serve as a valid basis for an AfD decision. This is mostly due to the pathological amount of national tag-teaming evident here (and in the editing of the article itself), with all the Indian editors voting delete as a block and all the Pakistani editors voting keep as a block – a situation that unfortunately reflects the pathological state of editing in this topic area in general. It is also due to the fact that the situation has attracted the usual assortment of sockfarms and throwaway accounts on both sides – again, a situation that is only too typical of the entire topic area, which is ripe with an insane amount of socking. Between all the socks and all the nationally-aligned me-too-voters, I can make out only a very small number of well-reasoned votes evidently based in independent assessment of policy; among them, that of User:Vanamonde93 probably stands out. In light of this, I'm pulling the emergency brake on this article and this AfD: I'm going to IAR on some of the normal AfD procedures and close this with a draftify and redirect. The draft as well as its talkpage will then be put under the new "Extended confirmed" protection level, shutting new editors and socks out. Established editors will still be welcome to work further on the draft; if and when they have reworked it into something appreciably more sensible, they can request having it moved back here into article space and we will run the AfD afresh (probably with the AfD page under 300/50 protection too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that say that India has indulged in "state-sponsored terrorism". All the content that has been shoved into the article from various other pages are basically accusations reported in the news media, but not a single reliable source is seen to assert anything close. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep This AfD is in haste, as the article hasn't been stand-alone for a sufficient time. It will develop further. Kautilya3 hasn't used the talk page to mention any such concerns, which makes it moot. I suggest that it be withdrawn for the time being. AfD is not a venue for content disputes. Also, the claim in the nomination is not true, as the number of sources at State-sponsored terrorism and outside reliable mainstream sources have extensive coverage of such allegations, so notability is implicitly present. Wikipedia's criteria is verification, which is also present. Also, the India section at State-sponsored terrorism is very long, so a split is inevitable per the WP:SPLIT policy. Mar4d (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftify Per Mar4d's explanation. Basically every major entry on the main page has their own spinoff, and the sources are as good as any of the other ones. Keep in mind that "State-sponsored terrorism" is primarily a collection of accusations, not convictions, and is clearly referenced as such. This article follows the same scheme. Not up to standards. Needs RS for everything, not just accusations. Other sections/articles should probably get the same treatment (On my to-do list now). Jergling (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) UPDATED BY Jergling (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many many sources in the article which establish the link between India and state-sponsored terrorism. Sources do not have to use the exact words to describe an action by state. If a source says that India is supporting insurgency in Balochistan, the insurgency which is killing people in that province then it is testament of state-sponsored terrorism but....but if you are looking for a source which uses the exact words then here is one such source:
Pakistan & Gulf Economist, Volume 20, The University of California, 2001, Pakistan had already suffered a lot by Indian sponsored terrorism since independence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? You need more? Then, ask for it? You said single and I gave you single! You will ask for more, I will give you more! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen one, you have seen them all. I was asking for a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lt. Col. Asad Ali (29 October 2001), "Pakistan and war against terrorism (Et cetera column)", Pakistan Economist (Pakistan's leading Business Magazine for the last 25 years)
  • Oh good lord. Is this where the India-Pakistan POV debate has gotten to? That for every article critical of Pakistan, we need one critical of India, and vice-versa? I'll say it straight up: most of this page is bunk, and unencyclopedic content (whatever title it is at). Here is why:
1) A very large part of this page centers around accusations, mostly by folks with vested interests (ie not third parties). All accusations by various governments and officials come under this category. These individuals are not reliable sources.
2) Some of the content is WP:SYNTH trying to link the Indian government to Hindu terrorist groups. Now these groups have been documented by reliable sources, but turning a blind eye, and support from retired army officials, does not count as "state-sponsorship."
3) A small section describes support for insurgencies. This is obviously genuine information, and Indian support for insurgencies is probably far larger than documented here. However, insurgency and terrorism is not the same thing. In order to include a group, or an incident, on this page, it needs to be described as a terrorist group/terrorist incident by reliable sources. And that does not mean reliable sources reporting an individuals elsewhere describing it as terrorism.
4) What this leaves is a substantial portion about Indian support for the LTTE. Unlike for of the rest of this article, this is genuinely encyclopedic information, because it is described by reliable sources writing in their voice. Therefore, I think Renaming this to "[Indian support for the LTTE]]" or something would be a reasonable option, after, of course, purging the inappropriate information.
As a final comment, none of the keep votes are based in policy, because none of them demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of this information. The fact that a different page contains accusations, as User:Mar4d argued, is not a reason to include them here: likewise, a fact that a page exists about a different country, as User:Jergling argues, is not a reason to have one here. I myself created the page about US sponsored terrorism, so I'm well acquainted with this topic: and the sources treat that topic very very differently. Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nomination is not based on the policy either, it complains that there are no reliable sources but since the nomination, the article has been expanded further and many more sources have been added so delete would not be because the article lacks sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheriff, the nomination does not say the article is not verifiable: the nomination says that there are not reliable sources discussing the topic as a topic. This remains true. As I have said above, the only part of the article that is substantively covered by reliable sources is the support to the LTTE. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, actually, there are reliable sources discussing the topic "as a topic". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: Thanks for expanding on your concerns. There are points I would have to disagree with however. It is unfair to judge the article in its present shape because, as I pointed out, the AfD was made in haste and the current coverage is hardly indicative of the in-depth material available. These state terrorism articles are part of a series of pages with similar structure, and based purely on sources and coverage, the material on India is no exception. Pakistan, in particular, is quite vocal and accuses India of supporting both Pakistani Taliban and Baloch insurgent groups through proxies in Afghanistan [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. These concerns have been shared by UAE officials as well [6] [7]. U.S. defence secretary Chuck Hagel has said that India finances trouble inside Pakistan via Afghanistan [8]. In addition, Paul R. Pillar in Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy (B.I.P., ISBN 978-0815770770) writes that "The closest thing to a major power supporting terrorism is India" but that it is on "a small scale and aimed solely at Pakistan, not at U.S. power and influence." So as you can see, this is a complex topic and not so black-and-white. And then there is the issue of Indian agents like Kulbhushan Yadav and Sarabjit Singh being caught, who have been accused/convicted of terrorism. Mar4d (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mar4d, that argument is not based in policy either. First, you are flinging at me a number of sources containing accusations, and hoping something will stick. You need to find reliable sources covering Indian sponsored terrorism, not accusations thereof. Second, if a page is not policy-compliant, it needs to be deleted or fixed pronto. If it is in development, then why on earth did you move it to mainspace? Work on it in your userspace as a draft, and move it when it's ready. You can't have it both ways: if you want it in mainspace, it needs to meet the standards for mainspace. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I'd normally agree with you, but it kind of looks like the most things in State-sponsored terrorism are accusations by involved parties, and they're quoted as such. There is some serious SYNTH going on in this particular entry, but I don't quite understand why it's deletion-worthy. Pakistan and India aren't reliable sources on each other, at least in this particular category, but aren't some of the sources accusing India actually from India? (Honest question, I don't know this part of the web well enough to pick URLs) Jergling (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jergling: Yes, many of the sources are from India, but it's not the place of publication I am concerned about. My issue is that the articles is based on reliable sources reporting the accusations of politicians. We cannot build articles on such accusations, else Wikipedia would be filled with complete bunk. If other pages have the same problem, it should be fixed there, too. Now I understand there is always going to be an element of accusation involved; no country accepts that it sponsors terrorism. But, for example, when I wrote [[9]], I made sure to include only events that are documented to have occurred. The CIA might not accept that it funded terrorism, but there are plenty of reliable sources describing the actual incidents: not simply accusations of no substance. Look at the first sentence of the article under discussion here: the bit about Pakistan is based on two sources that have the briefest coverage, and three that report accusations: which is why I call it bunk. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: As Vanamonde says, and reading and cleaning through the article so far, the article is full of allegations made by politicians and army chiefs with no much weightage to fact checking. For example I removed one claim as it was retracted later on and edited another claim which made to media at first as "evidences" but later was changed by the officials a month later after the media hype was probably over. There are a few verification issue in the provided refs too. We can work in draft space and depending on the length of legit content keep a new article or merge back to it's original place. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to State-sponsored terrorism#India. Most of the article content is based upon accusations. I agree with the opinions of Kautilya3 and Vanamonde. Bharatiya29 11:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is propaganda. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC) sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Clarify please? Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep none of the delete rationale's stick. "most of the article is based on accusation"? really? ALL articles in this category are "based on accusations". TouristerMan (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC) - banned sock.[reply]

  • Comment Please read the discussion carefully. The problem isn't accusations, it's first-party accusations by involved sources. This is decidedly different from the other articles in the category, which cite accusations by analysts and state departments. Jergling (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a little contradiction in that. You see, even for "analysts" and "state departments" to discuss sponsored terrorism, there is in nearly all cases a trail of accusations made by what you termed as first parties. And just because a first party makes an accusation does not render its views unreliable. We just have to see how corroborated and widely covered those views are amongst reliable sources including third parties. Mar4d (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's pretty much exactly what renders it unreliable. Involved parties shouting "terrorist!" at each other as a tit-for-tat slap fight is the whole problem with quoting every single politician who raises his hand. This is a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE - you're giving undue weight to what amounts to emotionally-invested individuals' conspiracy theories. Jergling (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The nomination seems to have been made based on personal liking of an editor. If a person does not like a particular page they should not nominate it for deletion as wikipedia is not owned by anyone. The concerns that have been shown are akin to boilerplate templates. Editors wanting to delete the article have made vague statements without giving any examples. There some hilarious rationales here as well, like a person who says that "turning a blind eye, and support from retired army officials, does not count as state-sponsorship." With flimsy rationales like this I highly doubt that the AFD will go anywhere. Danishkan (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC) blocked for using multiple accounts (obviously somebody's sock)[reply]
— Danishkan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Completely, agree with Danishkan here, this nomination is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR. We are not supposed to touch this subject here on Wikipedia which we have tried in this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of very poorly reasoned arguments being put forward here. To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject needs to have substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. The folks defending this article have consistently failed to demonstrate the existence of such sources. What we have right now is an article about "Accusations of Indian sponsored terrorism" (again, with the exception of the Sri Lankan content). @Mar4d: says "We just have to see how corroborated and widely covered those views are amongst reliable sources"; and he is absolutely right; I just wish he would abide by his own argument. The accusations are widely covered, but they are not corroborated in substantial form anywhere. Most of the arguments here completely misunderstand the nature of the sources. A newspaper article which reports individual A saying "the world is flat" is not a reliable source for a sentence in Wikipedia that says "the world is flat." All it can be used for is "Individual A says the world is flat"; and in this case, including that opinion would be inappropriate, because members of every government fling accusations at members of every other. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious to know, how can you brush the content as "conspiracy theories" when there are a gazillion sources? Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:: Who are you imitating my username? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC) sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this diff said user mass canvassed many editors sharing his POV at the same time. Danishkan (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan: It's funny you are saying this when I have written my above opinion before that user's edit to my Talk page. The least you could have done before making such accusation is note the timings of the edits. Pratyush (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVPUSH deals with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE content. That contradicts with the reliable mainstream coverage present. Both you and Capitals00 have not explained how it applies here, so it appears as a red herring. Mar4d (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not WP:POVPUSH, when most of the sources are from Pakistani media/authors. Pratyush (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@VictoriaGrayson: That is preposterous, your speculation is unwelcome! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that Wikipedia is becoming an outlet for the ISI, even if this is indirect. Only Admins looking at IP addresses can see if the ISI is directly involved.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why exactly you are concerned about that even if ISI is involved? Is Wikipedia for anyone to edit or not? You need to concentrate on the content not on who is editing and who is not? Do we know who you are and what you do in your personal life? What if I say that RAW, MOSSAD, CIA, FBI and KGB all are editing Wikipedia because they have nothing else to do? What weight my comment would have? The only vote I see here which should be declared null and void is yours. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not for anyone to edit. There are IP blocks for many organizations.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, your vote is based on an absurd speculation. You are voting Delete because you think that Wikipedia is becoming an outlet for ISI and by voting Delete, you are trying to correct the situation without any regard to what you are trying to delete. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majority of contents in article are based on primary sources. There also seems to be some WP:BLP issues, where few living people has been held guilty while the case is still pending in court. For example, look into there what ref#49 is and what it is cited for (one can open respective wiki-links for detailed information).
After removing these unencyclopedic and unverified contents; very thin piece of information would be left and that would most probably question the validity and need of a standalone article. Anup [Talk] 22:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Vagbhata2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has only edits on wikipedia are to a couple of drafts, since rejected. No other edits. Danishkan (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete There is already a section about India on the State-sponsored terrorism page. This article was initially redirected back in June 2015 and was created again by another user at a time when tensions between India and Pakistan are soaring (September 2016). The user who created the article, appears to be trying to mask their support of Pakistan by claiming the main article is too long (A giant "Pakistan flag" on their user page, does not help either). If that's the case, why keep the India section on the main article, wouldn't one just include the link to the new article on the main article instead of keeping the entire section about the country? I'm not buying it, there are much longer articles on Wikipedia than State-sponsored terrorism and its creation seems to have been motivated by political issues between India and Pakistan. I'm not taking sides on the India-Pakistan issue but I feel that such an article does not need to exist, at least not right now, as the main article has a good section about state-sponsored terrorism by India. (101.160.165.21 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep classic case of WP:IDLI, WP:POVPUSH, WP:OWN and many other policies where the nom just wants anti-India stuff "off" the wiki. I have read the sources and 95% of them a WP:RS, other 5% are WP:PRIMARY sources, but their use is in thier place. This article contains almost zero% WP:SYNTH as editors have taken care not to include anything from themselves. In a nutshell it is a pretty OK article, albeit an irritating one for Indians. 182.186.167.206 (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — 182.186.167.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

::The above IP knows many many policies. Someojne is IP socking. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC) sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tajan51 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this msg left on his TP. Danishkan (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sock and canvassing alert Please note we have sock accounts being used to WP:CANVASS users from the 'delete' camp in violation of this AfD, while another user has deliberately canvassed at least twelve users to this AfD. This is highly disruptive for the purpose of this discussion. All predetermined opinions coming from these involved parties should be treated with caution as WP:VOTESTACK. Mar4d (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't know about canvassing. This will not be repeated again. WP:PAKISTAN has also been notified of the nominations along with WP:IN. Both Pakistani and Indian editors have now also been notified. All of these notifications (including the original ones) should be seen as appropriate due to its neutral message and open transparency. I guarantee that consensus will not be swayed in any direction as a result of these notifications. Filpro (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I have to say this that the idea of informing WP:PAK and Pakistani editors to counter the earlier canvassing is not a good omen. Unfortunately this shows that this debate is being seen as India vs Pakistan, which it should not. --SMS Talk 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should have never been an India vs Pakistan thing but it automatically does become one when the creator of this article is pushing for the deletion of this other article. It's quite clear that there is a WP:BATTLE going on between Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians and it is hurting Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it looks like there will be no consensus. Filpro (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d:, I want to put this out there, I'm not in any way a sockpuppet. I know you didn't explicitly name me but I just wanted to let you know that I am a regular IP user whose IP address constantly changes. I geolocate to Australia and I am not of Indian or Pakistani descent. There are registered users on Wikipedia that I've gotten to know and they are well aware of how my IP address constantly changes for some reason. So what I'm saying is you shouldn't disregard my vote. I have regularly taken part in discussions like this, the most recent one being to restore a Wikipedia page article for the song "Side to Side". My IP address from yesterday is 101.160.165.21 (talk · contribs). (121.214.173.232. (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I was referring to the following sock. Also, you should consider creating an account per WP:REGISTER as the advantages are many, and it makes it easier for other users to recognise you (especially on discussions). Mar4d (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks @Mar4d:. (121.219.125.183 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep All the arguments from the keep camp are irrelevant to the discussion sources clearly show India is indulging in Terrorism in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Indian editors need to be more mature and understand wikipedia is not owned by Indians or the propaganda wing of the BJP government. Inaghetto (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Inaghetto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The article about state sponsored terrorism contained as section about India since long. This appears to be merely an a split to a full article which is completely per wikipedia norms and well sourced. The debate here seems pretty contentious and I would request the closer to ignore !votes asking for censorship. The delete !votes stating that the main state sponsored terrorism article already has a section are infact logically in support of the "keep" argument. I'll thank User:Flipro for inviting me to vote even though his own comment was in 'delete', but I'll also like to note that this is not a vote and his comment is merely a vote. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mar4d. Let's see where this ends up before judging it. It seems to have gained significant coverage. The quality of the sources could do with improvement.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are clearly enough 3rd party sources to merit an article for this issue, I'm surprised that this is even being considered for deletion. cӨde1+6TP 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into state-sponsored terrorism per Capitals00. There's a lot of CIO-users in here.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge' There are 10 citations in this article which claims to be of such import of which 4 are one sided biased accounts from Pakistan. Definitely POV pushing.HemaChandra88 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- This article is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. This article is an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE.Jayprakash12345 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring. WP:FALSEBALANCE is for uncited "fringe theories" and "extraordinary claims". This article falls into neither, nor have you proven how. Mar4d (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d: No, you have that wrong. It is not possible to prove that something is a fringe theory, because that involves proving an absence of sources, which is impossible. The burden of proof is on you: you have to demonstrate that the content you wish to add is supported by reliable sources. This you have consistently failed to do. The article is improving slowly, but that is because several editors, including me, have ruthlessly pruned the original research from it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GSS-1987 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. as per this diff The offending user (Who has no edits on wikipedia articles) has canvassed other like minded users to this page as well. Danishkan (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danishkan:, Are you serious? You possibly WP:SPA user who registered on 21 September 2016, and have only 32 edits which are only related to this topic accusing me? I not even recieved any notification about this so call sock and I dont need anyone to canvas me as I'm not blind or deaf. GSS (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:GSS-1987 there is a diff which shows the canvass. Danishkan (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins please not the persistant socking and canvassing for delete votes on this discussion and please ensure the outcome takes into account the major efforts of Filpro et al on swaying this vote and muddying the waters. 82.132.236.252 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: Krishna was canvassed from his talk page. Mar4d (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: Mar4d is a Pakistani nationalist who has a serious COI of making India look bad.74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@74.70.146.1: I suggest you keep your unwelcome personal attacks to yourself, and also educate yourself on what WP:COI is. Focus on the content and discussion, not vitriol. Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a lower quality article. The subject is notable but this presentation of it is problematic. The article would benefit from following any narrative of a book which directly addressed the subject. Right now, I do not see any single source giving an overview of the subject which immediately stands out as a strong summary of state-sponsored terrorism from India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no RS sources to keep this article. This is Mar4d and SheriffIsInTown's attempt at pushing their anti-India POV. Googly Drive (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC) sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

Keep - I have randomly picked three citations (numbers 10, 49 and 2 respectively) and the sources cited are reliable and do say what has been mentioned. So the requirements of Notability, Reliability and Verifiability have been met. The requirement for Neutrality may not be met because I note a lot Synthesis in this article which may be addressed once the AfD is closed and other neutral editors get a chance to work on it. In reply to the comments posted above, Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for championing your personal opinion or for fighting with those of others. Further, a Google search brings up other sources that may be cited here. So the requirements of keeping this article are more than justified. Note: The comments posted here are merely those of a Wikipedia editor. My personal opinions on the topic are not suitable for discussion on this article talk page. -Wikishagnik (talk) ::@Wikishagnik:, How many reliable sources are there, where the name of the book, the name of the article is "India and state-sponsored terrorism"? How many books are written with the exact name of this article? How many non-Pakistani website, non-Pakistani author has written articles/books titled "India and state-sponsored terrorism"? List them here please. The only option in your favour is something suggested by Vanamonde93, is to move this to Indian support for the LTTE.

*Strong delete No academic book with the exact name. And only Pakistani websites making their claims. No reliable websites from neutral countriesGoogly Drive (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Googly Drive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sockpuppet, since banned[reply]

  • Strong delete While casually moving on this wiki for searching of an article, found this discussion.The article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted in my openion.

--V.narsikar (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete It is an anti-nation article holding motive of spreading misinformation regarding specific country. There is no proof for information provided on this page. It can observed that this article is running by some community who has wrong intention, also this article violating Wikipedia guidelines for keeping neutral information. सुमित सिंह (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move some contents to another appropriate title such as "Indian support for LTTE": I have browsed through the references. No third party sources have used language which supports the loaded language in the title itself. Except for the Indian support of LTTE, I dont think most other content would go out because of WP:NRV. Reports of accusations by parties involved in disputes cannot be considered as independent evidence!! Also, WP:NOT#SOAP (the article appears to be for the advocation of a pet point of view which is not shared by independent sources) and WP:NOT#ESSAY (it is not a site where original research can be peddled). Get some independent sources who say that India has some connection with state sponsorship of terrorism first. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, The article is well referenced, Books, newspapers references are given at the sentence end in the article, "The Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable sources, to which this article fully accomplished". And sorry for those brothers/ nation who has been accused of state sponsored terrorism, for them I would say its not the people of any state terrorists, but the governing elite is the master mind of such atrocities, Pakistan and India was divided by the Goraas as they were feared that United India will be very dangerous to their objectives. If the article has some sentence corrections, unwanted words that may be excluded and this article is strongly recommended to be KEEP as it fulfills all the criterion of Wikipedia. Thanks for inviting me for this discussion, India and Pakistan should live with peace, resolve every issue with peacefully... --Jogi 007 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@Danishkan and Mar4d: I think you forget to add the WP:CANVAS template for the above message by this gentleman or you are ignoring because it's a "Keep" vote? or you are waiting for someone else to do it? GSS (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:GSS-1987 read the above discussion. Filpro mentioned him when filpro was "caught red handed" canvassing his friends. Discounting this person vote will be the height of complete bad faith. What happens if I mention every single Indian editor? Are thier votes bad? Put the blame where it is due, on Filpro. He canvasses, it is his problem. Report him if you want. Anyone who was mentioned by Filpro in his "reaction" msg is not a canvass. Danishkan (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? hope this isn't a joke anyways good luck. GSS (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:GSS-1987 really what? No he was caught red handed, the discussion is right here. It does sound like a joke that an editor will be bad faith enough to canvass, but sadly it is not. Danishkan (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dissecting through the delete arguments I find three issues mentioned the most .i.e. 1). lack of reliable sources covering the topic, 2). POV and 3). Accusations. But I find that there are plenty of reliable sources covering this topic in parts. Those vying that there are no reliable source covering this topic, I suggest they take another look at the article. Unfortunately for some the criteria of a source being reliable or not has come down to the perceived citizenship of the author .i.e. whether the author is Pakistani or not. It does not matter to them if it is published by an academic publisher. Some of the editors opining delete/merge also agree there is significant coverage of India's support to LTTE to warrant an article. So, I would like to present two sources that discusses a part of rest of the topic significantly.i.e. India's support to terrorist groups of Pakistan and Myanmar (Burma):
Extended content

The Indian Reseach and Analysis Wing, RAW, was the prime espionage agency of the country, and far more efficient than the amateurish KHAD, its Afghan counterpart. As AI-Zulfikar men began to arrive in India from Pakistan and Afghanistan from the beginning of September 1982, RAW set up a reception centre and camp for them in the city’s Surya Nagar locality. It was under the charge of Sardar Salim, a PPP worker from Rawalpindi. Every new arrival was fingerprinted and photographed by RAW and given a code-name that was always Hindu. The agency did not want the junior training staff to know that these men were Pakistanis or Muslims. Sardar Salim’s name was Kashi Ram, while Yaqub Cheena was Ashok and Umar Havat was Deepak. Sohail Sethi was Prakash and Murtaza Bhutto the leader was Kumar.
RAW was not only careful with the code-names; it took security seriously. For instance, it knew that some of the men would eventually be caught by Pakistani agencies such as Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and so it took steps to prevent them from knowing where they had been trained in India. These men were transported to and from their camps by helicopter. Where the training camp was located they did not know, except that it was in a hilly area about three to four hundred miles from New Delhi. Actually the training centre lay in the city of Bhuj. What they learned there included the use of light weapons and techniques of sabotage, including bomb-making. When they were ready, the men were brought back to the Surya Nagar facility in the Indian capital, where they were always met by Murtaza, Shahnawaz and Sohail Sethi. They were organized into groups of four and smuggled across the border into Pakistan to carry out different missions. All AJ-Zulfikar affairs were controlled and guided by a RAW officer named Chawla.
In September 1982, two RAW-trained Al-Zulfikar groups were sent across the border to Pakistan to assassinate two leading members of the Majlis-i-Shoora. General Zia’s hand-picked advisory council. The group sent to Sialkot and Lahore was lcd by Rehniatullah Anjum and included Umar Ilayat and Talat Jaffrev. The fourth member, according to some accounts, was Afzal Razzaq — code-name Dr Trailo. The other group went to Karachi. It was led by Ayaz Sammu, and also included Yaqub Cheena, Ilyas Siddiqul, and Javed Malik. Siddiqui and Anjum were among those who only a year and a half earlier had been brought to Damascus by the Pakistan government in return for the hijacked PIA plane, its crew and passengers. Both Rehmatullah Anum and Javed Malik were wanted for the murder of Chaudhri Zahur Elahi. ......
Anjum’s party crossed the border near Sialkot, stole a car from the city and on the night of 2 September Umar Hayat and Taiat Jaffrey headed for the house of the respected veteran politician Khwaja Muhammad Safdar, armed with hand-grenades. One Al-Zulfikar man recalled in 1990 that Khwaja Safdar’s three-storey house was located in an old part of the city. There was a lot of overhead wiring in the street and around the house and the two operatives were afraid of lobbing a grenade into the house because it could easily hit the wiring and rebound on them. In fact, though, the grenade exploded on the flat roof of the old-fashioned house, and the two made an easy getaway.
The attack on Khwaja Safdar’s house was meant to be a symbolic warning, ......
The car stolen in Sialkot by Anjum was abandoned at Daska, a small town about twenty miles away. Here they stole another car and drove to Lahore, where on the night of 5 September, they threw a hand-grenade at the residence of Justice Saecd-ur-Rehman, killing a security guard by the name of Murid Ahmed. Two months after this incident, the judge resigned his post, something Murtaza must have added to his trophies. The group’s luck held, and the four made it safe back to Delhi.

— Raja Anwar, "The Terrorist Prince: The Life and Death of Murtaza Bhutto" (1997), Verso, pp 138-


... in the 80s, RAW supported tribal and ethnic factions fighting the SLORC in Myanmar. One of the factions supported by India was the Kachin Independence Army. The Kachins, known more accurately as Jingphaws or Marus, account for some 3 per cent of Myanmar's ethnic population. They inhabit the north-east of the country and have the reputation for resorting to arms to assert what they believe are their rights.
A senior officer in RAW deputed to Bangkok in the 80s made contact with Burmese underground leaders in the hope of gaining some information. Then this officer decided that the KIA could be beneficially used to channelise information. And RAW could aid them with money and arms. Having made contact, the idea was to get members of KIA into India for training and contact creation. After the controlling officer returned from Bangkok, infiltration of KIA cadres was started. They came as students, youths touring India and helpers, sent for training to Chakrata and other locations in north and north-east. Arms and other material began to filter through to camps in North Myanmar and this reached its peak in 1991-92. Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram provided exfiltration sites, while some material went via Bangkok. This was the post election period when Aung Sang Suu Kyi had won but was not allowed to take power by SLORC. All this was stopped by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, as part of his "Look East" policy.
Looking back, one may well ask what purpose did this operation serve? What national interests or foreign policy goals did it serve? Keeping in mind the dimension of policy in the 80s. that of coercive diplomacy there is little doubt that the Government thought it fit to aid all rebels across the borders, wherever it suited us. But on many an occasion it backfired, as it did in Sri Lanka.

— Pankaj Mehra; Bhashyam Kasturi, "Geo-Politics of South Asian Covert Action"(April–June 2001), Indian Defence Review, Bharat Verma (ed), Lancer Publishers, Volume:16 Issue:2, pp 26
Then India's support Mukti Bahini (that is also regarded as a terrorist organization) is well documented in multiple reliable sources. Regarding the argument that article has POV issues, even if true, its not a reason for deletion. Another argument is that there are only allegations or accusations of state-sponsored terrorism by India. Be it accusations, our job is to present those accusations/allegations neutrally in the article. We are not a judiciary to judge whether those accusations are admissible enough to pronounce someone guilty or not. This is an encyclopedia, a collection of information based on verifiability not WP:TRUTH. To me it more looks like content dispute. I see some of the editors suggesting deletion are engaged in content related discussions on the talkpage also. Apart from this are mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments which I don't think needs to be answered. --SMS Talk 05:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see a very strong assertion on so called "reliable" sourcing of article. Yes, there are sources which are generally considered "reliable" by Wikipedia, but in present case most of them, are neither "secondary" nor "independent" of the issue being dealt with.
A plethora of Pakistani publications has been thrown in without wp:attribution to support allegation of sponsored terrorism against Pakistan by India. Like North Korea has tons of against South Korea, U.S. and other countries. There is a dearth of "secondary, independent and reliable" sources to support the article.
I understand this discussion is most likely to be closed as "no-consensus". In that case, the title is better moved (based on present sourcing and contents) to, Accusation against India for state-sponsored terrorism. Anup [Talk] 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is bad faith editing. How can you claim that an article is based on unverifiable sources and then say that it is based on RS? I disagree with this completely. There are multiple, independant RS that show that RAW was involved in terror activities globally. Please do not make this a Pakistan vs India debate. The article deals with other countries as well. For example All RS state for a fact that RAW was involved in training the terror group LTTE in Srilanka, many of these RS are Indians. Danishkan (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Even Sri Lankan Prime Minster said, "his allegations was based on incorrect information" (BBC). That's an official retract, if you know what does it mean (may be Google it?). "ALL RS" is a personal opinion and better you keep it confined at self.
Pakistani government officials, Pakistani military experts, Pakistani newspapers do not meet the standard of "secondary, independent and reliable" sources to back-up information on India's alleged behavior against Pakistan. In India, there are thousand times higher such publications against Pakistan. In fact, every other country has against its rival ones. Anup [Talk] 08:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anupmehra please do not toss about these red herrings. You knwo, as well as I do, that your link to the BBC is talking about a recent allegation that camps were there in 2011. They denied that camps were there in 2011. No one in the article is claiming that there were camps in 2011. This is complete bad faith. You are quoting something that has nothing to do with the article in question and trying to pass it off as a reliable quote. Yes I am well aware that India has publications. Actually I have used Indian publications to prove the role of RAW in Sri Lanka. Danishkan (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&oldid=1219657298"