Talk:State-sponsored terrorism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Mughalnz (talk)indian article Mughalnz (talk)

can any one make the article not WP:POVFORK and improve it so it can be added tot he section to give balanced overall activities of all countries we one section is not to small in comparison with other sections in the page


India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups by Pakistan. It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s.[1][2].India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'.An article written by BBC says that EX-General Pakistani Hamid Gul said that RAW was responsible for the Lahore Attacks but there were 'no evidence' to Prove the allegation' [3] [4][5]<

India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups by Pakistan. It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s.[6][7].India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'. [8][9]<


India's counter-intelligence unit, the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) has been accused of supporting insurgent groups throughout Pakistan by Pakistan and 'Experts'( in involvement in Baluchistan to be specific), as said by an article from Council on Foreign Relations additionally it also said RAW has "carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan' with Terror units in the 1980's ,and that they had that had used '"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore'; Pakistan furthermore accuses the 'Indian intelligence agency RAW was behind several terrorist acts in Sindh,Punjab(Pakistan) and Islamabad' as written by Asian Survey in the 1990's [10]. It has also been accused of training and arming the Sri Lankan Tamil group, LTTE, during the 1970s before it withdrew its support when the LTTE increased its activities in the 1980s.An article written by BBC says that EX-General Pakistani Hamid Gul said that RAW was responsible for the Lahore Attacks but there were 'no evidence' to Prove the allegation' [11] [12][13][14] [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talkcontribs) 21:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore info on Bal0cc infomtion from reuters said by expert from Jamestown University saying that U.S saying they got no info on indian involvement as they do not want look for info indian ionvlovemnt becasue they are india ally http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18122957 , http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/08/world/train-blast-kills-23-and-pakistan-blames-india.html- alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bomb-explosion-kills-two-people-in-pakistan-border-village-727182.html-alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/feb/06/kashmir.india-alleged act of indian terroism by Raw ,http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw.html RAW: India's External Intelligence Agency - Council on Foreign Relations

 alleged act of indian terroism by Raw 

Mughalnz (talk)similiar allegation written on other section in the should not be included pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talkcontribs) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Mughalnz (talk) Mughalnz (talk) c Mughalnz (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


[16]


Holocaust

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Germany; I would have thought that the Holocaust would be the most obvious example of state-sponspored terrorism. Does state-conducted terrorism not count as state-sponsored terrorism? I have to assume that there's some rationale behind its absence, since people have clearly put a lot of thought into this page and it seems a pretty blatant oversight. - Darth Wombat (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The holocaust is mentioned under State Terrorism (as opposed to state sponsored terrorism). Essentially your rationale is correct, even if the exact phrases aren't the same as yours. Epeeist smudge (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Warrior

Shouldn't this be State Terrorism rather than State Psonsored terrorism since it was caried out by French Intellegence directly, rather than "sub-contracted" to a terrorist NGO? Epeeist smudge (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

Some definitions with sources of what SST is would help. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction is a disaster It should, at a minimum, attempt to state what state-sponsored terrorism is, per WP:MOS. Ray (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, it should be more than a definition (from something more than a dictionary) per WP:NOTDICDEF.VR talk 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


MP>>This is still not resolved. I would argue that the defintion of terrorism from the main Wikipedia article be quoted, with then a phrase or two indicating how this relates to state spondorsed terrorism. This important given the disagreements over whether the examples cited are within a definition or not. Perhaps each example cited should also provide a clear indication of what definition of terrorism is being used.

Also useful within the definition would be a reference, even perhaps quotation from the World Court Judgement:

"The Court has to determine whether the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was such that it would be right to equate the contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Government. The Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the contras on United States aid. A partial dependency, the exact extent of which the Court cannot establish, may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the United States, and from other factors such as the organisation, training and equipping of the force, planning of operations, the choosing of targets and the operational support provided. There is no clear evidence that the United States actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf." "Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed."

Although I disagree with this judgement as the US Government was clearly aware of the Contra's terroristic activities but continued to fund them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificbiblio (talkcontribs) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clandestine Organisations

Is the sponsorship of clandestine organisations behind enemy lines in a war or armed conflict "state sponsored terrorism"? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

MP>>Where the intention is to create a state of terror in civilian population by deliberately targeting them (as opposed to 'collateral damage') I would argue YES.Pacificbiblio (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Section

Perhaps the UK SAS training of the Khmer Rouge in mine laying after the 'killing fields' (source = BBC News & others) should also be included here ?Pacificbiblio (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

India

  • The expand section tag was wrongly removed from the section since the section is too small and needs expansion as compared to a few other sections in the same article. I think that should be restored to start with.
  • The second edit; removal of "but so far it has remained an allegation only" seems to be making up the mind of a reader which is done in editorials, encyclopedia's leave the decisions to the readers giving facts and sources to which they can follow up.
  • A third edit removed was the last line about Kashmir which is an unobjectionable claim (whether right or not, the claim being there is not disputed). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You my not make a statement of fact if it is just an allegation, hence a disclaimer is required. If the section needs expanding then do so, why add large ugly tags to an article? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a reason the tag exists. One being I plan to improve it later and want other interested editors to notice the tag and help. A disclaimer itself is given by the word allegation. If I say "Pakistan accuses India of so and so", or that "India is alleged with so and so" the disclaimer is already there in the clear words used that it is that country's allegation. Mentioning at the end that it is an allegation only is not only redundant but also unduely emphasizes the POV of the allegation being wrong, which is called an editorial. The last point is also not in any dispute. Restore the first and last, while we conclude the 2nd one. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the last was uncited, the first is not needed, the second is necessary. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The first is necessary unless you are going to improve it right now? See WP:EDITORIAL for second point, you should not make it so "inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The last is unobjectionable, unchallengeable content inherently doesn't need a citation, but if you still object I can provide. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Let us see your source for the third, as explained in my edit summary I did not see any editorializing in the content removed, if they are allegations only and not proven then it needs to be stated that they are such. And I see no reason for the expand tag, either expand the section or leave it be. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add the source for third. The word accusation means allegation, had they been openly 'proven' I would rather have had removed the word accused as well. Your repetition of this is undue and I just quoted you the policy for that. If you still don't see it you need to read WP:HEAR. You have to let go when you don't have a case. For the expansion tag, you can see that an expansion is needed (for that's why you are telling me to do it my self instead of tagging), and there is much broader consensus on validity of this tag since it is a listed template on the wikipedia. If you feel its not right, go and challenge the tag and get it removed, this is not the right place for that conflict. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You quoted a policy, well done you. But as I said, there are no editorializing there that I can see, perhaps you ought get a consensus to remove the content. Can I see an expansion is needed? I see a rewrite is needed perhaps, currently it is a bit POV. I am aware what accusation means, as I am also aware that when an accusation is made then it is normal to also have the response that the allegation was denied. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are not adding that India denied it at all. You are adding the editorial phrase 'so far its an allegation only' when it has been told in the first place that its an accusation. So you are wrong. You are just reverting me on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since you agreed on the section's problems as a rewrite and expansion both, The expansion tag is completely valid. About me doing it myself, there is no compulsion on me while the tag has a broad consensus to be used. And I did show you consensus about removing the content. The policy I quoted has been made through consensus, and it clearly states emphasizing one statement repeatedly is editorializing. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
By combining multiple issues you want to confuse discussion. Your wish to add Kashmir to the list is a complete misuse of the term 'state-sponsored terrorism'. Why would any country want to sponsor terrorists in the area that it controls? If anyone is sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir it is Pakistan. If you think may be Indian Army is committing human rights violation, then take your discussion to human rights violation article and convince people there with your citations. This is not a place for that. Akilan (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By no way am I confusing things here. See that I carefully mentioned my three edits in separate points as I'm discussing with the editor above. So that is not the case. About Kashmir, I'll give due citations when I add again so that you can't object to that, what ever the reasons being (probably to counter insurgents). For now the problem is that the editor above is bent on repeating twice that Pakistan has accused India of this. That is clear repetition as the first sentence tells that anyway and is subject to WP:OPED. If he wanted to add that India denies this, that is another thing, but here he just wants to repeat the first. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources used to support that the major claim of SST against India are obviously not reliable for statements of fact. Please find better sources, preferably from the academic press. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Your argument does not justify the rest of changes you reverted. And note that I've added proper news archives. Review the listed policy for the sources before commenting. Read WP:NEWSORG:
"Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors."
The sources are reliable you should self revert here. Read WP:WIN. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Your only reliable source is Dawn, and it does not support your claim. There the phrase "state terror" not "state sponsored terror" is used to describe actions of India and its troops in Kashmir. Some group has accused Indian troops of human rights violation. Note the word accused here. Your edit did not reflect that. Moreover, as I already told you take this source to human rights issue page. This is not a place for that issue. State sponsored terrorism is when state sponsors terrorists (non-state actors, as Pakistan loves to call them) as an instrument of its policy. Indian army, a non-covert force, even if they commit uncalled for aggression (which I dispute, but I'll take that up in human rights page), are not terrorists. Akilan (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, it mentions both.
"India continues to sponsor state terrorism."
India is being accused of both state terrorism and sponsoring it. And you are wrong, all the sources are reliable, I've reviewed them. [7] This one is a publisher, and the rest also giving probably credited articles [8]. There is no question of reliability of source. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is some more unquestionable content from Indian source which should be added to the section. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. And one other source [14] --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Stick to one issue now. The sources are not reliable. They in turn cite other sources does not mean they are reliable. They can mis represent or misinterpret. Cite reliable news media and/or academic sources. Your quote doesn't mean anything. The phrase "state terror" is used there in a different meaning. Akilan (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Check the opening of the section, there are three issues being discussed here which includes section expansion. So I'm sticking to the three which are being reverted now by TLAM even after citing and explaining. The fact that the sources cite other sources make them only more reliable. As you just said, they are citing other sources (which means peer reviewed content) and they are crediting the author's of the articles, this only fills up the criteria of an RS. And the phrase I quoted is very much in context here, only if the editors reverting would stick to policy and debate instead of a polemic. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
When I said stick to one issue I did not mean first three. I said about your new citations about Nandigram issue etc. Do not confuse that here. Nobody is using polemic here. Whom are you accusing of not sticking to policy? And since when cited implied peer reviewed content? Both are different. I may write a blogpost citing other unreliable content or even cite reliable content but interpret wrongly. Peer review on the other hand is used by editors to determine(by sending my piece to other experts), if my cites are actually reliable and correctly interpreted. That's why I ask for news media/academic citations. Do NOT confuse citation with peer review. Akilan (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't refactor my comments. Yes, I think you still didn't get it, one of the three issues is expansion of the article which constitutes both the expansion tag and the expansion itself. About the policy, TLAM has removed RS and you are the one backing, so that was for that. And I think you should be able to differentiate between a published source and a blog. So yes, when more than one published sources are citing the content, and when a published source is citing more sources, its reliability only increases --lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not re factoring anything. "...editors reverting would stick to policy and debate instead of a polemic" clearly says, you think some are not sticking to policy. It is you who doesn't get it. Citing more sources increases reliability only if citations are reliable. Akilan (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You removed the edit conflict tag [15]. About your quote, I just pointed out, read my last comment. There are two things to be noted here; the publishers themselves are reliable sources and the citations if any, would increase reliability to a piece of publication if they are more reliable where as act as a reference when they are not so reliable because publisher's own reputation vouches for it in that case for presenting a reference. In anycase, I've given enough citations to back my addition. And I don't know what your dispute is? It is a widely known fact that India is accused (rightfullu or not) by Pakistan for this, and since I did use the term accusation, and presented citations there is no point in removing the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it. We both commented on same time, and my comment didn't get in and wiki asked me to enter it again. I entered it again and since I solved the conflict problem I removed the conflict tag. I did NOT remove any of your own comments, just wiki tag. You are confusing it again. I don't mind adding that Pakistan is accusing India about Baluchistan issue. Provide proper citations for India sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir. Akilan (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No, that wasn't wiki tag, I entered it so that others would know if something overlapped from the edit conflict. Anyway, Well atleast we have one issue solved. And I guess there are to be no issues with the section expansion tag as you can see the size of the section. The citations I gave above are also reliable about internal issues. About kashmir, I have given proper citations. You are free to review them properly. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It is questionable, your first source is an opinion, the second also. The third says state terror, that is not terrorism. the fourth is again opinion. You will note that all usages of SST in those articles are also in scare quotes. Those sources are not reliable enough for statements of fact. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
TLAM, read WP:NEWSORG again. All sources are RS. Not to mention I've given multiple sources. The quotes are there to represent the accusation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As I have already explained to you, your sources are opinion. You may not use them for statements of fact. And of course what makes the opinion of those people notable? What weight should be given to them? Noy a great deal for the last four sources I looked at which you had presented. You really need sources from the academic press, why not find some? The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove "but so far it has remained an allegation only", which is backed by reliable reference, based on personal views.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my reply to that in my comments above. It is already disclaimed in the word accusation. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man, stop removing sourced content. I've given you 4 sources for it, one of which, Dawn news is as old as 1941 and is a mainstream source. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

An IP insisted on calling the American use of the atomic bomb a case of state sponsored terrorism. While some people might consider this cruel act of war an act of terrorism, the IP has failed to give a reputable source that this is an opinion a scholar held and discussed with his or her peers. This is why I removed that addition. O.Koslowski (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

How about saying, we don't need a source to call the sky blue? I do, however, encourage the IP to provide sources for reference but a cn tag would have done just fine instead of edit warring. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What the heck? This is not a clear-cut case. The definiton of state-sponsored terrorism is controversial, and saying just claiming that something is a case of state-sponsored terrorism simply will not fly. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I tend to disagree, I'll wait for the IP to provide sources or do a search my self, but plain removal is not the way to go in this case... it is a very obvious case. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not an obvious case. Look at this edit where the IP removed a reference he/she wanted to include. Now if you check the contents, you will find that it is a forum and that while some people call it an act of state-sponsored terrorism, most people consider it an act of war. Which it was. I find it astounding that you would find it a "it is a very obvious case". O.Koslowski (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't object that this contention should be hidden either. It should be stated too that it is disputed that this might be just a immoral act of war rather than terrorism. The current source seems to be from a TV website, that would make it a media source (though I'm not sure.. need to verify it further). You can try presenting your counter argument here, we can then add it to the article after giving it some discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
One reference was by a Japanese person (no scholar, no media person, just a citizen), and the second link the IP wanted to include was a forum. And the Japanese site calls it 'Terror' which is not the same as 'Terrorism'. The Japanese site is not a TV website, no media source. And it should be obvious that neither website is a reliable source. My counter argument should be obvious: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was conducted by uniformed armed forces after both sides had declared war. Don't be fooled by the fact that the bombing of those cities was cruel. So were the conventional bombings in Germany, so was the Doolittle raid. I do not see how you could fit this into any coherent definition of state-sponsored terrorism, and it doesn't fit into the examples of the articles at all. O.Koslowski (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your counter argument is obvious, I meant that it should be added to the article too with a source then instead of removing what is already added. I've left the IP a tb (though that doesn't seem to work, probably his IP changed by now). --lTopGunl (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
No. The article isn't a place for discussion. You don't have a source to back up your claim, and simply leaving an outlandish claim in there just because you happen to agree with it, is a disservice to the article and the project. You and the IP are free to believe that the bombing is a case of state-sponsored terrorism even though it doesn't fall into the definition at all (at best it would be state terrorism, and even that is hard to argue in a war). But as far as the article is concerned, your opinion matters just as little as mine. You have no right to make it your soapbox. Leaving it in its current state and adding a true instance of WP:BLUE by adding that the bombings were done in a war doesn't really help the article at all. You want to have something very controversial added to an already controversial article, and I see it as your task to either offer real references or remove it. O.Koslowski (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I disagree with you on above, and there would be many sources out there anyway, but this rather belongs to State terrorism on second thought. So I won't object if you revert me here. I'll add it to that article later. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

India II

The first source doe snot support the content "India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border." as said by Chuck Hagel. It makes no mention of support given to insurgents at all. So it needs to be removed. The second source used to support the opening actually says "There is no evidence to substantiate Pakistan's claims that India is supporting Baloch rebels" So apart from Pakistan how is this supported "several other countries specially among the muslim world also support Pakistan's allegations"? It is not so I shall remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan, Taliban, and Osama

Pakistan is still being accused of sheltering Taliban, and recently Osama was killed there. I don't know why User:Multan47 wants to add 1990s as time when Pakistan sheltered Taliban and delete the sentence about Osama's killing.(Ironically He leaves references intact.) Akilan (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

US - Pakistan gave no proof of Indian involvement

Pak provided no evidence on India's role in Balochistan: US

Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor the United States have confirmed the existence of any such "dossier" on India's involvement in Balochistan. The entire allegation is based just on some unknown sources mentioned by the Dawn newspaper. Until the governments officially acknowledge, it can be said with utmost certainty that Pakistan has not yet shared any proof of Indian involvement. Therefore, Balochistan allegations cannot be taken seriously and do not deserved to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Nosedown (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and the website you provided is by some Indian newspaper so it must be included in the article india always accuses so why are Indian allegations included? Indian terror acts in Baluchistan must be mentioned 86.162.71.49 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Pakistan has confirmed again and again that they have provided the evidence. For this you may see the ref previously provided. India denies to due to their own complications, especially due to protest by some opposition parties.yousaf465'

Mughalnz (talk) additiional cridible information Mughalnz (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore info on Bal0cc infomtion from reuters said by expert from Jamestown University saying that U.S saying they got no info on indian involvement as they do not want look for info indian ionvlovemnt becasue they are india ally http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18122957

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). . MaxFerby (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you do not get it, you need a consensus for your change, read WP:CONSENSUS. Do not edit war, and be aware of WP:3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You ignore my arguments, and you declare edit war. There can't be any consensus with a factual mistake. MaxFerby (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Read International Law: A Dictionary p 131 onwards. Russia assumed full and legal responsibility for all actions undertaken by the USSR. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You falsely cite the book.
  • First, the legal responsibility for all actions undertaken by the ancestor is nothing in common with being the same state.
  • Second, the citation directly related to the topic is "A state, the Soviet Union, becomes extinct, having entirely broken up into parts which become separate states of the Soviet Union, with none of them being a continuation of the extinct Soviet state".
Now, you commit a three-revert. MaxFerby (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that the article is entitled 'state-sponsored terrorism'. If the state concerned was the Soviet Union, it would seem to me to be a bizarre act of historical revisionism to suggest that such acts were in fact carried out by a state that didn't exist at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: How is it revisionism? When the USSR collapsed the only way Russia was allowed to retain their seat on the security council was to accept liability for all debts, treaties and actions of it`s former empire. It is right here on the source I have given. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Or if you cannot access that one "It seemed logical for Russia to become, as it did, the "legal successor to the Soviet Union," Economic Interdependence in Ukrainian-Russian Relations: Descartes to Kant p131 Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Completely and utterly irrelevant. 'State terrorism' cannot be carried out by a non-existent state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct. Darkness Shines, you are constantly confusing two statements: like that someone took responsibility for the other one's (probably, close relative) actions (such as debts, signed treaties) and that someone was the other one before he was present at all. MaxFerby (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Israel

I noticed that Israel is not featured here, I looked at an earlier discussion on this matter and I saw that it was removed because of the ambiguaty over whether their actions in the Palestinian territories is state-sponsored terrorism, now I understand that this is a matter of dispute but shouldn't that debate be discussed in the article itself, considering that it is something that is discussed often by the international community?
P.S. The above-mentioned discussion also failed to mention Israeli support for the Lebanese Maronite millitias that commited the Sabra and Shatila massacre, if that's not state-sponsored terrorism, I dont know what is. Charles Essie (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know enough about this to undertake this myself, but if you can produce sources, it would make an important addition. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

This is attributed, and the source is RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel, recent reverts

I just reverted removal of the "Israel" section, because it is currently thoroughly sourced, and all it is saying is "King Abdullah said XYZ." An argument that that was war and not terrorism holds no water, because all we are saying at this point is that the accusation was made; moreover, without sources, "it is war and not terrorism" is pure original research. Leosard, I do not intend to revert you again, but I seriously suggest you discuss the matter here before attempting to remove this again. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when is "so-&-so has this opinion" the same as a "source"? No wonder the other user removed the section; I was thinking of doing so myself, but checked first. This is reprehensible, & illustrative of why Wikipedia is laughed at as a source for anything BUT other sources. FlaviaR (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on State-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Add William Blum

Could you please add William Blum in "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower", meaning the United States, after the last sentence about Noam Chomsky? Pepper9798 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on State-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

India paragraph to be checked

Would someone with knowledge of the subject please review this recent edit [16].

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on State-sponsored terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in State-sponsored terrorism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of State-sponsored terrorism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ban":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Censoring and hampering the efforts to improve the article

@Silver Shark: Where did you see ISI in the sources? @Drajay1976: Re to your summary The changes made were violative of WP:NPOV. Accusations, which were clearly mentioned in the article as accusations were presented as facts.

Where do you see accusations presented as facts, accusations are presented as accusations and facts are presented as facts. Did you even check the sources and verify the information before removing that information, you obviously cannot verify this information in just few seconds which you took to revert me! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

See the first few lines of the new version. "India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh[6] and Pakistan,[7][8][9][10].

  1. This link is clear in the language. It is an accusation by Pakistan.
  2. This link itself doesn't show any information. The bibliography has this quote "Pakistan itself continues to be the target of Indian-sponsored terrorist activities" It is not clear if it is an accusation by someone (is that someone an independent third party??). The context of the quote is not clear. It cannot be taken as proof without more clarification in the bibliography.
  3. This is an allegation/accusation by Pakistan and not an assessment by an independent third party source. Should be mentioned as such. It should not be peddled as the truth.
  4. This link doesnt have any information. The bibliography has this quote "Pakistan had already suffered a lot by Indian sponsored terrorism since independence". Who said it? Was s/he an independent third party? The context is not clear. It cannot be taken as proof without more clarification in the bibliography.
  5. This source (Dan G. Cox; John Falconer; Brian Stackhouse (1 September 2010), Terrorism, Instability, and Democracy in Asia and Africa, UPNE, p. 125, ISBN 978-1-55-553746-3) is sited in the bibliography to support the statement that "India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh". The statement is in present perfect progressive tense. It means that India had supported terrorism in Bangladesh and is still continuing to do so. Such a positive and contentious statement cannot be accepted without even a quote from the book!! What does the book say? Does it say that India supported terrorism? That it continues the support?

The first line of the edit itself has so many contentious issues and the references do not clearly suggest that India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Most of the easily verifiable (online) references in the article clearly indicate that it is allegations. But the user User:SheriffIsInTown has used such firm language in the text!!! I strongly feel that this is WP:SNEAKY vandalism. The entire edit needs to be reverted. User:SheriffIsInTown can add sources individually and make changes in the language one by one, instead of trying to sneak in (if I may use the phrase) a very large change at one go. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

By this edit, User:Mar4d has reinstated a contested edit which was twice reverted by me. His argument is that blanket removal is WP:DISRUPTIVE. The guideline doesnt have such a policy at all. In fact, the reinstatement by the user is itself violative of two points in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The original edit did not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and there is no attempt to consensus building (even as a discussion in the talk page was started). --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I will answer you point by point although you did not wait for me to answer and started disrupting the article again, a lengthy post like that requires a lengthy reply and preparation.
  1. Re: This link is clear in the language. It is an accusation by Pakistan. That source is an Indian Express source and is replaced by two third-party sources which confirm that its not just an accusation. Third-party sources should always be preferred over Indian Express or say Pakistani sources.
  2. Re: number 2: Your inability to verify a source is not a reason to remove something from the article. All sources are not fully accessible online, you can go to a library or buy the sourced material and verify the content and no its not a statement by anyone, its what the source says about India's terrorism in Pakistan. The BBC source says the same thing so there are two sources confirming that its not just an accusation.
  3. Re: number 3: I would remove Dawn and Indian Express sources as they are not third-party sources, two third party sources say that its not just an accusation. The confirmation that Pakistan accuses India of terrorism does not mean that it cannot be a fact when especially confirmed by two other sources so there are two third-party source which states this as a fact, one Pakistani source which states this as a fact and one Indian source which says its an accusation.
  4. Re: number 4: A line from a source does not always have to be a statement by someone. Its in the source and verifiable if you want more information, you will need to get an offline copy of the source.
  5. Re: number 5: You would not always find quotes from sources, its there in the source, the page number is there, how about picking up a copy of the book and confirming it if you do not believe it.
The easily verifiable sources are not third party sources, they are mostly Indian sources, they should be replaced with third-party sources which I did. Now, can you also please discuss the changes that you recently made and provide the reasons for those. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Number 1 & Number 3: Two sources are clear that it was an accusation. The language in the article was based on those sources. I do not agree with discarding these sources. As long as the other sources you added are not explained by you (what is the context of the quote/s) it is the language in the original version which should stand.
Number 2, 4 and 5: I did not ask something to be removed from the article. I said that the change can be made in the article AFTER the quote and the context from the offline source is given in the reference/note/bibliography/talk page. That should be easy for you since you have obviously read the offline sources. If the context/quote is acceptable to me (as a third party source), I will not challenge it and let the change in the article stand, until I verify your claim in my own time. Now, you have not committed anything at all (so there I have no incentive to prove you wrong). Changing the text in an article with WP:QUESTIONED sources is not appropriate. That can lead to edit wars. It is common practice for editors to give quotes/context in the talk page when asked for. The attitude that I have read it and you prove me wrong, is not conducive for co-operative encyclopedia writing.
The changes I made are all in small increments with the explanation given in the edit summary. You can read those at your leisure. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
India's support of terrorism in Pakistan can be reverted to accusation until a better source is provided by me. Regarding Bangladesh, the source (Dan G. Cox; John Falconer; Brian Stackhouse (1 September 2010), Terrorism, Instability, and Democracy in Asia and Africa, UPNE, p. 125, ISBN 978-1-55-553746-3) talks about cross-border terrorism aspect in South Asia and it says that there is evidence that Indian Security Forces supported terrorism in Bangladesh, so no this is not an accusation so please change it back to fact instead of accusation as I have not reviewed all of your changes. As for your other changes, they will be reverted if I do not agree with them so please discuss them here at talk. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That is acceptable. For Bangladesh, I did not change your language. Only added a tag for better citation. As of now, the paragraph on Bangladesh starts with this sentence "India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh.[46][citation needed]" On placing the cursor over the [citation needed] tag, the explanation "This claim needs a reliable source. A quote from the book and the context is needed" is given. Would be nice if you can add that to the bibliography. --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning

This article is not to be used as a dumping ground for contested material from that chaotic "India and state-sponsored terrorism" article. That article is now at Draft:India and state-sponsored terrorism and can be edited there. Further edit-warring on either that page or this one, from whatever party, will be met with harsh blocks or topic bans.

Apart from this, please:

  • Keep this article in the format of a high-level summary. The "India" section has now been blown up from 1,300 words that it had yesterday to 1,600 words. Either number is far, far too much. Keep this section in proportion to the other sections in the article.
  • Do not operate by bulk copying or reinstating of large passages of text from that draft, on either page. There's clearly substandard and tendentious writing in that material. What the draft needs is people sifting through every single sentence rewriting and cutting for neutrality, or, better still, people rewriting it from scratch.

Fut.Perf. 05:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: If you look at the previous version of this article, section regarding India was tagged with refimprove. During build-up of that other article, a lot of new sources were discovered, the outdated sources and the content needs to be replaced in that section. This is not a valid reason to bar people from editing and improving that section. How are people going to improve references in that section if you will not let them do that. Your warning is a blanket warning, it does not serve any other purpose beyond from scaring people off of developing and improving this article. If there is any contested material, then it should be contested at talk and resolved by discussion and I am ready to follow each and every policy to make this article better. When it comes to the length of the section, its not any lengthy than the section on Pakistan, addition of 300 words is not a big addition. Also, there is no policy about section-length limits. If other sections are smaller then I do not have any objection if people want to add sourced content into them. Copy/paste function is there to assist editors and to save their time. A lot of content was introduced by me into that article, at least there should not be a problem copy/pasting that. If there is clearly substandard and tendentious writing in that material then you can point that out at talk as well and I will address those objections but there should not be a blanket removal with a blanket reasoning. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I restored back the article to pre-September/October (19 July 2016) version before all this non-sense started from India and Pak editors. Another reason to restore contents were what has been stated in this thread in the very first sentence by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, This article is not to be used as a dumping ground for contested material from that chaotic "India and state-sponsored terrorism" article..
Go back to draft (please!) and make improvements there and when a consensus is achieved, replace contents in here. I'm also convinced that some sort of sanction should be introduced for editors who undermines the process of consensus. Anup [Talk] 23:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mutlu Civiroglu

I reverted the deletion of an interview of an interview of Anwar Moslem by Mutlu Civiroglu. The objection to the text was that "civiroglu.net and kurdishquestion.com are not reliable sources, they were like personal blogs". However, Civiroglu is credited by Al-Jazeera as a "Kurdish affairs analyst" [17], and the first of those sites (the one with a presently live link) is his site. The interview included direct video of Anwar Moslem, and so I think this is entirely valid to source even by WP:SPS restrictions. (I am not clear on the status of Kurdishquestion.com, where the same thing was published before) Wnt (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

While I was typing that, User:Sabri76 reverted me [18] with the odd comment "please do not violate 3RR". (that was the first time I restored the content he deleted) Wnt (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't see that you were typing these sentences so I'm sorry about 3RR warning. Are we sure that he is the elected Mayor of Kobani? How do we assert that he's in charge? The city is called officially Ayn al-Arab and it's a city of Syria. Apart from this, YPG always defame Turkey, we can find many sources. If you really want to add these allegations, you are free to find reliable sources. There's no need toinsist on using contradictive sources and infos in this crucial article. Also, why Civiroglu didn't report it as a news article? If we use all these allegations in personal interviews which were not published, how do we assert that wikipedia is objective? I can find many blog like websites to add interviews about the purpose of YPG (establishment of Kurdish state), why they deport Arabs and change ethnic composition of Northern Syria and why they are angry at Turkey which ruined their plan. I didn't touch other statements and references because there's no problem of reliability. I try to assume these acts good faith.--Sabri76'talk 18:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
We can certainly qualify the statements by clarifying who Moslem is and where he's coming from -- that's only appropriate. I found confirmation of his mayoral position at [19] by David L. Phillips, which is cited by David Wight on RT,[20], and confirmed by SBS TV of Australia [21] and the UK Morning Star [22] Civiroglu published that he was head of Kobane Canton in an article for Al-Jazeera. [23] There are some disagreements in accounts as to whether he is mayor, premier, or head, and about what "Kobane" is, but I think these can safely be attributed to vagaries of translation. In this Christian Science Monitor article he is called a "defense official". [24] What all this tells me is that this is a news maker, and video of an interview with him should be seen as relevant and important for an article. As for YPG vs Turkey, sure, of course there will be partisan views, and there's again no reason not to explain who is saying what. I am not in any way telling you not to document the things you describe about YPG; by all means do. More data makes for better positions from all involved - less data makes for worse decisions from all involved. Wikipedia is here to compile the data about everything modestly notable that anyone volunteers to compile it about. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

About the Wikipedia ban in Turkey

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

Please reconsider deleting the part about Turkey. Just two articles are unabling access to millions of Wikipedia articles by millions of internet users from Turkey. Our government may not be doing the right thing, but please, don't you think that just keeping these two articles are less important than a whole country being unable to access to Wikipedia? Please reconsider deleting the parts of the articles that are causing the Wikipedia ban. Access to information is a right of ours as much as it is a right of yours. interpalms (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Interpalms: Anyone who wants is free to make a copy of Wikipedia at any time. If you really think that deleting two articles out of Wikipedia would make it safe for you to carry an archive into Turkey and host a censored version without them there, or to set up your own mirror in the U.S. that markets to Turkish citizens, by all means you can go ahead, and you can update it as often as you can download the database and put it on your server. There may already be mirrors of Wikipedia that are not blocked by Turkish censors. But I am not advising you that it would be safe to do this, because these are by no means the only two things the Turkish censors could be expected to object to. How safe would you feel in Turkey with a copy of our article about Fethullah Gulen nowadays that links to his books and website? I mean, they just banned dating shows on the radio [25], while we host lovely works by Adolphe-William Bouguereau, not to mention an article about Vagina Monologues. (I could mention several better things but why wrack my brain for tactical ideas to give them?) Either you believe in freedom of expression or you don't, and any craven capitulation here would accomplish much less than nothing, signifying a willingness to negotiate with the worst sort of tyrants all over the world. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I should add that the Daily Sabah article also said "Turkey also requested Wikipedia to open a representative agency in the country, comply with the international law and pay taxes like other companies operating in the country." To my ears that sounds like the Turkish regime is demanding that WMF, a charitable organization, pay them tribute, plus hand over hostages who can be threatened with imprisonment unless they delete whatever the censors feel like demanding tomorrow. I mean, it's just not possible. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:Wnt. We are not opening an agency in the country. We are a smallish NGO.
Some of the sources supporting the section on Turkey include the BBC, the New York Times, The Independent, and the Al-Ahram Weekly. As well as CNN. Would be useful for them to explain which sentences they do not agree with and why. We can than discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV problem

WP:NPOV states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. This article fails NPOV. A standard monograph on State-sponsored terrorism[17] has the following chapters:

  • 4. Iran and the Lebanese Hizballah (p.79)
  • 5. Syria and Palestinian radical groups (p. 117)
  • 6. Pakistan and Kashmir (p.155)
  • 7. Afghanistan under the Taliban (p.187)
  • 8. Passive sponsors of terrorism (p.219)

and under chapter 8, it gives three "instances"

  • Saudi Arabia and Islamic radicalism
  • Greece and the revolutionary organization
  • The United States and the Provisional IRA

It seems to me that these are the instances that should receive detailed coverage in this article, not those countries that people want to grind an axe on.

If anybody knows other sources that can help us decide the WP:WEIGHT, please feel free to bring them forward. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Everything within the State-sponsored terrorism Wikipedia page seemed to be appropriately cited. I checked several of the citation links and all of them took me directly to the original source. Everything on this page was orderly and very easy to access. Tyler Hulan (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Hulan (talkcontribs) Some of the articles seemed like they could have some slant to them but overall it was about as neutral as could probably be expected considering the topic. One citation issue I saw was that Libya appeared to be missing a citation for the information provided in the first paragraph of that portion.Awbritt (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A book from 12 years ago would be good to support the history of the topic. We should contain much that is more recent than that and we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

WND as a source

Comments about whether WND is a reliable enough source to have allegations based solely on their reporting to be included in this article would be greatly appreciated. As I was alerted to the situation by this comment, I will specifically call for Wnt's input. If WND is indeed as unreliable as Daily Mail, I am all for the removal of such content, as these do not meet the required standards of reliability for such a sensitive topic, which would obviously require high-calibre resources. I do note that WND is of a much lower calibre than many other sources we have in the "Turkey" section. --GGT (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that a "sensitive" topic demands higher-quality sources; censorship should have no impact on Wikipedia policy or standards. If our policy or standards could be better they can be better for anything - and in truth, facts often come from strange places. However, that said, I think that claims from both Daily Mail and WND should be evaluated quite skeptically, and of the two, I think of Daily Mail as the more reputable source. I think it's best to supplement WND with more reputable sources if WND actually had someone on the scene doing primary reporting, and to replace them with more reputable sources when they offer no special perspective. And to flat out disbelieve them if they report something that no one else in the world but Alex Jones is saying, per WP:FRINGE. (e.g.) I think the latter two are generally the likely options. Wnt (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
"Facts often come from strange places" is a good motto to live by, but not to write an encyclopaedia by. Although you are of course right that highest standards of verifiability need to be achieved in each and every article, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary sources, and topics are thus stratified according to the level of quality needed in the sources. Perhaps my wording did not make my point clear enough, apologies if that was the case. In any case, let us agree to disagree if necessary on the philosophy of it.
I welcome your skepticism regarding the sources, and I welcome your insight. "Turkey was providing training to ISIL militants." "Turkey had provided satellite images to ISIL." These are accusations of immense nature and need extraordinary sources per policy. They are currently only supported by WND. We really should not even be discussing if these claims should stay in the article with such terrible sourcing. As you rightly pointed out, these sources invite skepticism and could not be further away from extraordinary. There is even a community consensus against using Daily Mail, let alone WND that you have deemed worse. I contrast this with some of the sufficient sources available in this article, which appear to include even sources of academic nature. I thus believe that it is essential for the sentence supported only by WND to be removed. --GGT (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@GGT: Sorry, I'd taken your comments to be suggesting you'd be doing something with that text, and mine weren't intended to stop you. The only question is whether you can find better sources saying the same thing or want to just discard the WND stuff. The sources I have at the beginning seem pretty clear about Turkey helping a coalition that includes al-Nusra, but they also say al-Nusra is a fundamentalist rival of ISIS and suggest that Turkey helps al-Nusra mostly because there's no other viable-seeming choice but a coalition they dominate, ISIS, or Assad. Specifically, WND refers to an apology by Biden that is also mentioned by Al-Ahram here: [26] - apparently a 2013 operation to arm Syrians had arms end up in the hands of IS, but Biden apologized for the implication this was anything but accidental. Since the U.S. of course has supplied lots of arms to the Iraq government that ended up in the hands of ISIS, that certainly seems like a believable take on the story. Even so ... that war is such utter chaos that I should not be stunned if I find out Americans were giving satellite images to ISIS at some point - there's nothing that could come out at this point that I would consider "extraordinary" compared to what already is known to go on there. I've been hoping that some editors with a deeper understanding of these issues would show up to edit this article given all the publicity - this is a poorly organized and incomplete mishmash and it seems pretty ridiculous that with so many people talking about it there's nobody doing more than the tiny bit I have to try to make it clearer.Wnt (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@GGT: I haven't researched this as well as I ought, but so far I found only this source backing up the satellite image allegation, but it calls it an allegation and doesn't give the source, probably because its editors would be ashamed to cite WND. We've let this twist in the wind long enough, I'm going to cut this bit out and drop it here:

A WND report in 2014 citing Jordanian intelligence alleged that Turkey was providing training to ISIL militants. Another report citing an Egyptian official claimed that Turkey had provided satellite images to ISIL.[1][2]

    If anyone else wants to chase this rainbow, feel free. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

    About my edit to the Turkey section

    I deleted the following line because it is not neutral. CHP is the opposition party in Turkey. His words should not be considered authoritative regarding issues related to Turkey. There are other organizations operating in Syria that aren't affiliated with ISIS. That part of the article is literally a conspiracy theory. It kind of assumes, the weapons would have been delivered to ISIS. Which is conspiratorial.

    > According to CHP Deputy Chairman Bülent Tezcan, three trucks stopped in Adana on January 19, 2014 and were loaded with weapons meant for ISIL. These weapons were driven to the border, where a National Intelligence Organization (MIT) agent replaced the driver and drove the truck to Syria. He claimed that this has happened many times. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu produced a statement on October 14, 2014 from the Office of the Prosecutor of the Adana maintaining that the Turkish government had supplied weapons to ISIL in trucks. He also produced interview transcripts from truck drivers who transported the weapons. According to him, the government claimed that the trucks contained humanitarian aid for Syrian Turkmen however the Turkmen claimed that no such aid was delivered.

    And the following is also not related to terrorism.

    > Dengir Mir Mehmet Fırat, founder of the AKP said that the government was providing support to terrorists and the Turkish Minister of Health had even said that it was a humanitarian obligation to care for the wounded ISIL members. Taraf claimed that Ahmet El H., one of ISIL's top commanders was treated at a Turkish hospital along with other ISIL fighters and the cost of their treatment was paid by the government.

    A single claim by a ruling party official is not sufficient to add to an article about supporting terrorism. Treating terrorist is not equal to supporting them. And he didn't say turkey was providing support to terrorists but it is a rephrase.

    > Kılıçdaroğlu claimed on October 14, 2014 that ISIL camps in Istanbul and Gaziantep are used to recruit fighters.

    The above claim isn't backed by evidence. Sensitive topics should not allow biased opinions.

    The following allegations are from Turkey's adversaries. They don't fit wikipedia's Neutral rule.

    > Turkey has been alleged to have assisted ISIL during the Siege of Kobani. The Mayor of Kobani Anwar Moslem in an interview with Mutlu Civiroglu in September 2014 was asked about speculations in Kurdish media of Turkey assisiting ISIL and a train being sent to the border carrying assistance for the ISIL. He in turn responded that the Kurds had information that 2 days before the start of the war, trains carrying forces and ammunition which were passing had an-hour-and-ten-to-twenty-minute-long stops in 3 Turkish villages and there was even evidence about this. He also said that it was attention-grabbing that ISIL was only strong to the east of Kobani but not in other directions. YPG commander Meysa Abdo in an op-ed written for NYTimes on October 28 claimed there is evidence that Turkish forces have allowed the Islamic State’s men and equipment to move back and forth across the border.

    Diken's report is about Turkey ignoring terror activity, not supporting it in any way. And those who cross to Syria are not terrorist at the time of crossing.

    > Diken reported on October 1 that ISIL fighters heading towards Kobani crossed the borders from Turkey into Syria in full view of Turkish soldiers.

    I deleted the entire Turkistan Islamic Party section. The group is not designated as a Terror organization by any neutral group like UN.

    If I have made a mistake, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talkcontribs) 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

    @SakibArifin: I am actively working on the article. Please hang on until I am done. Your blanking would probably be reverted anyway.
    Vito Genovese 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

    A separate article "Turkey and state sponsored terrorism" might make sense

    As the Turkey section of this general article is becoming ever longer (and will become longer still once the long overdue additional Hamas subsection is added), it might make sense to create a separate main article "Turkey and state sponsored terrorism" and leave only a link to the main article and a summary here, as it has been done with some other countries which are as active in such policies as post-2002 Turkey. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

    I agree. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know. The section in question does have a "My word against yours" thing going on right now. When a country has such poor relationships with its neighbors, such allegations can be expected. It IS getting long, yes, but I think removing a propaganda machine (hence, an unreliable source) such as RT might help fix this problem. Turkey can be criticized on many things (and rightly so), but not based on hostile propaganda of another state, please. This would be POV-pushing.
    Vito Genovese 09:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    I am inclined to agree with Vito Genovese on this one. Thanks to the work of a number of contributors, I am very pleased to find the section in a much better state. However, I can still see a number of issues with WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE that need to be addressed before we decide that this is getting too long and needs to be separated.
    For instance, I am convinced that having an entire paragraph based on reporting by RT, who has been described as a propaganda outlet and a source of disinformation and fake stories by various sources, including some ex-reporters and an advisor of Putin (see article) is massively undue. And it's not as if we're using an independent secondary source that evaluates the RT claims and establishes their significance, we are using the RT article itself and then using an equally biased source that disputes what it says. If we can't find any better sources for a statement than the propaganda machine of a government at odds with the Turkish government, then that statement has no encyclopaedic quality IMHO and should not make it to the article (per WP:UNDUE). If such a high claim on such a high-profile topic is indeed worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia, then one would fairly expect there to be no scarcity of independent sources about it.
    Same holds for the entire Turkistan Islamic Party section. The claims reported there have been raised by some unnamed "Arab media" and "Arab news agencies". Firstly, it would go without saying that these need to be named for any evaluation by the reader to be possible. Secondly, once again, there is no establishment of the importance of these claims by secondary reporting/evaluation on them, nothing to suggest that these are not fringe claims. If these claims are indeed due in the article, then I would presume that Wikipedia would not be the first English-language medium to report on them.
    As Vito Genovese said, "Turkey can be criticized on many things (and rightly so)", but we cannot and should not let the fact that Turkey is worthy of criticism to render our approach emotional and accept anything short of perfect compliance with policies here. And given the fact that parts of the section still look doubtful, I would for the time being disagree with a separate article. --GGT (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

    This article is subject to Deletion

    State-sponsored_terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: "State-sponsored_terrorism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

    This article is highly biased, disputed, and references are from sources like Noam Chomsky calls USA is a terrorist state and, newspaper columnists. We don't even know if this support to terrorism was really made by those governments. It's basically an article based on allegations. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content, is one of Wikipedia rules.

    What Wikipedia is not

    • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Vedat yenerer (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Seriously? These minor problems do not make this article eligible for deletion. The solution to verifiability and neutrality issues are to manually fix them yourself, not deleting the whole article, especially not marking it for a speedy deletion. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    The problems are not minor. The article itself is an issue. You cannot fix an article which is based on 90% on rumors and allegations. The bots would detect it as vandalism, if you remove so much material because anyone dumped in any rumor they found into the article. (You can't put rumots to Wikipedia even if the sources are reliable, read the rule) I nominate it for deletion.--Vedat yenerer (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Would you like me to format the AfD so that other editors will recognise and respond to it or are you no longer pursuing the matter? Just let me know and I'd be glad to make it happen. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    ping failed the first time so reping Vedat yenerer d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    This is a highly notable subject and definitely deserves an article. If it went to AfD I'd vote snow keep. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I'd do the same. But an AfD will teach a lot. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Vedat Yenerer is the name of a Turkish journalist. How much do you want to bet this is about the recent expansion of the "Turkey" section? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    A lot. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    He's talking about this as well on meta on the talkpage of the Response page there: Simple idea and Local law. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)