Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 15

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

The result of the debate was keep // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cold War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Del this monstrous and obtrusive template arbitrarily packed with events. It only waste of download bandwidth. A List of Cold War related articles (which may include much more and structured in a similar way) and Category:Cold War would do the navigational job even better and in a less obtrusive way. `'mikkanarxi 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, this is a totally standard infobox format in line with Template:World War II among others. Actually, compared with the WWII one it's not even that large. --tjstrf talk 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per tjstrf. Skeezix1000 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful navbox. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Harcore Cold War Keep per above, but not the nom †he Bread 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I too think it's way too huge, but this is the norm. Go take it upw ith WP:MILHIS to propose redesigning or splitting. Hbdragon88 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a useufl template, and links all the major Cold War topics to another article of relevance. There are so many such templates, why delete this one? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but I admit it is a bit big :) perhaps the vertical line spacing could be reduced a bit, for instance? (Radiant) 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per above. It may be big, but we're discussing a series of events spanning over 45 years. ZZ 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Useful exploration of the topic in terms of concepts and events. It used to creep in size, but that has now been stopped. Cripipper 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per convention on many war article series, Tewfik^Talk 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and informative, although I think it's ridiculously gigantic. Kafziel ^Talk 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has utility and follows convention. -Preposterous 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's useful and follows wiki convention. --Sharz 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Shorten and remove from articles where it is not absolutely necessary. This template is an ever-growing monster showing up in too many places. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes it is too big, but i believe the template is useful. I agree we should shorten it. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's big but useful.Patrick Berry 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful navigation template. Discuss editing it and reorganizing it if necessary, but it's not a reason to delete it. Neil916 (Talk) 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it's large, but it's a complex and broad-reaching topic. Radagast 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it is useful. Such a topic requires a comprehensive template. Tankred 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historically important216.95.23.95 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Nav templates of this size are useless and don't aid in navigation. The vast majority of these articles should be linked within the articles where they apply. Others can go in categories and lists. If you must have a nav template then limit the amount of links, but still cover the basic areas. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is very useful to cross-reference topics for the period. One of the good ways that Wikipedia is unique. Ryanjo 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is a faulty and subjective brainstorming template. --Polarlys 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If there need to be improvements made in terms of style, content and prose, they can be done without deleting the template. Cold War marked recent human history more then most wars since antiquity, if Wiki is going to include articles that are tens of pages long about fictional Pokemon, Disney and Star Wars characters and planets, it would be really weird, to say the least, to delete this template :)) Baristarim 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Guys, I'm awfully proud of you, you brought up a lot of good points, but you need to reach an agreement here. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox State terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This templates title has no supportive source. The template just tries to demonize the Sri Lankan Government. The list of people given on the template may actually have been victims of the on going civil war in Sri Lanka but it is no reason, to include baseless facts in a wikipedia article.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snsudharsan

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elalan Due to lingering doubts with a sockpuppet case launched against me and Elalan by user snowolfd4, I wish to recuse myself of the vote made here for the template. Trincomanb 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:This is unprecedented, users User:Psivapalan, User:Sri119, User:Mama007, and User:Mystìc have been confirmed to sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k. This tFD was initiated by User:Mystìc, the sockpuppet. Thanks, Elalan 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment having read User:Mystìcs contributions here and other places,i highly doubted that hes a sockpuppet of lahiru.I believe administrators have made an error in their judgement,and hopefully the ban will be lifted ASAP.And i would like to ask,mr elalan to read User:Mystìcs contributions,before jumping into any conclusions.

--Iwazaki 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Someone should check User:Kaushini also as sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_K. ThanksRaveenS 17:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment having used both your user name and a couple of anonymous IPs in editing,iam highly amused by your accussations here.As another contributer has correctly pointed out, i think administrators should take an immediate action against this, a case very similar to sockpuppet using.Since not only you have used an anonymous IP in editing, but also have not responded my comments of it, i have the feeling this was intentional rather than accidental.

--Iwazaki 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of who initiated it, the point is that there are sufficient genuine uses objecting to the templates inclusion which make this debate valid. I suggest that we stick to the content here rather than focussing on the contributors. Sock pupetry is hardly a unprecedented incident, the admins have taken note of it and will take apprropriate action against whoever necessary. In the mean time lets focus on the subject matter here.Kerr avon 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Please make an argument based on the follwing 1)The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic); T 2)the template is redundant to another better-designed template; 3)The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");4) The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);. When nominating you have not made any reference to one of the above reasons. Thanks RaveenS 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles that the template links to have hundreds of sources linking each and every evidence. Indeed the list of victims were killed, with strong supporting evidence to point to Sri Lankan government involvement and complicity. Elalan 13:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"strong supporting evidence" is a vague term, we need facts, and not suspicions, only proven victims should be included, where either a local court or a independent judicial recognised body, or a international court of law has found the government guilty of the alleged crimes. If there was "strong supporting evidence", then any judicial body should have found the guilty parties but most of the links like Taraki, have never been proven, with people like Colonel Karuna alleging that the LTTE itself commited the murder.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The content is very much biased. A readers gets the feeling that the Sri Lankan state is against the Tamil community, because it does not speak/give info much on difficulties of the Sinhala community, both facing terror of state as well as LTTE. It also does not list properly the Tamils that have been killed by the LTTE(which is higher than the number killed by so called State Terror, other than the war it self). User:Rukshan

• Comment: To admin please do a checkuser on this account. This profile has not contributed for a long time except to come and vote here. This behaviour is suspicious and highly consistent with the other sockpuppets caught in this tFD. Elalan 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Non of these acts have been accsed as State terrorism in Sri Lanka.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This reason has been disproved, murder of Nadarajah Raviraj shows wide acceptance of accusations of state terrorism in the murder. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "wide acceptance" is not a NPOV term and not a fact. There is a ongoing investigation with scotland yard involved and till it concludes no one can make any certain allegations.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Nadarajah Raviraj is just one article that shows user Lahiru's above "so called reason for deletion" to be false along with many humarights abuses and extrajudicial killings. The murder of this politician is widely attributed to be an example of state terrorism (please see the article with referenced sources) that is featured on the front page. Elalan 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Again "widely attributed" is vague, not a NPOV term and not a fact. Just because the eelamists and the LTTE sympathisers and a few extremists howl that it maybe state sponsered doesnt make it a fact or worthy of inclusion. There is a ongoing investigation with scotland yard involved and till it concludes no one can make any certain allegations.Kerr avon 09:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:You have hardly given evidence for Scotland yards direct involvement in the investigation. With sham judicial system (as indicated by the International Commission of Jurists), where country is considered high on the Failed State and corruption index. The Govt. has been tarnished beyond recognition for numerous actions to both the Sinhalese and Tamil "citizens" of its country. It has promised numerous "judicial inquiries" Direct govt. complicity or evidence for it has been indicated in the articles themselves. All significant POVs on these subject deserve due coverage and its not upto us to censor this. Elalan 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Attribution is not enough, it should be confirmed.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Using the sham Sri Lankan judicial system ? Sri Lanka has the second greatest number of people missing behind that of Iraq and Sri Lanka has been widely accused of state terrorism by Asian Human Rights Commission and perpetrating numerous war crimes. Elalan 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: No one including any terrorist group can challenge the judicial system in a well recognised country whatever the various NGOs say.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the UN just categorically said Sri Lanka after Burma is the only country that recruits children for war.[1] That is one aspect of its State terrorism. Number of disappeared people is second to Iraq as cited in the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article. If you read State terrorism article, it is clear we don’t need court cases to prove State terrorism. What we need is proper neutral citations from reputable sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US state department reports and UN agency reports. If you couple it international neutral media reports such as BBC, CNN and ABC along with local Human Rights groups and media reports you can categorically list State terrorism by any country. RaveenS 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The above commentator convinently forgets to mention that it is the LTTE which has ben accused by countless reputed international bodies of recruiting child Soldiers. The above report he highlighted is just one mans view, and his (Mr rock's) further statement like "Mr Rock said the fact that Sri Lankan troops were complicit in the recruitment of child soldiers meant that Tamil Tiger rebels would continue to do so, as it corroded the rule of law." shows that Mr Rock may have a hidden agenda trying to use this justify the LTTE's recruitment of child soldiers and questions his credibility. This is just one mans view and has not been justified by any international bodies findings. The SLMM were here for a long time and it is strange why they have not made these observations, which further questions the reliability of this mans reports. Please do not use this unsubstantiated allegation as a example of state terrorism it does not befit this encyclopadia. As the commentator said we need neutral sources not the sites run by the eelam lobby or single reports. Any person can go to a news agency and say anything, but that does not make it worthy of citation in a encyclopaedia like this.Kerr avon 12:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The allegation that the government of sri lanka uses child soldiers for war was made by Alan Rock who is a former politician with links to supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Canada[2] which casts serious doubts about the neutrality of his comments and such cannot be used as a source. This just shows that the eelamists are hell bent on villifying the Sri lankan government without verifying the credibility of the media reports, this also shows the importance of having factual information given the importance and seriousness of the involved subject and not one or two persons ideas.Kerr avon 05:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep -Many people consider these things acts of state terror,we should keep this. Also,Sri Lanka has lost the second highest number of people to state terror after Iraq.
• comment that is because we have the most ruthles terrorist organization on the face of the earth. The way LTTEers acting now, i wouldnt be surprised even if we come first in the list.

--Iwazaki 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Also,we can find any act of state terror we need to refer easily on the template.Donnyt 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment and what if all these allegations are false,as i and others have pointed out here ?? Should we still keep it,so we can deceive the whole world ??

--Iwazaki 11:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment the user Donnyt may well be a sockpuppet.Other than voting here,and vanishing for good,he has done no mjor contributions at all.His user page very much suspicious and i would kindly ask Administrators to have a look at this user.

--Iwazaki 09:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: A total waste of server space. Kaushini 05:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Usage of server space doesn't dictate content. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: not only a waste of server space, but also a huge blow to the standard of wikipedia.Iwazaki 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please point to one 'blow'. It is NPOV, all of the claims are verifiable (even as per International media standards), is being edited by a team of people with proper consensus - It just is WP:5P. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Totally POV. Mama007 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:How so ? The content has been cited with authoritative sources and organizations in the field. Elalan 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Are you saying the subject matter is POV or the template is POV. If it is the subject matter, then it has been resolved over 3 AFD’s and is similar in nature to Armenian Genocide. The subject mater might be controversial to all most all (but not all) Turkish historians and the government and its supporters in the Wikipedia but it is not to rest of us. If the Template itself is POV in your mind then can you help us with ideas to make it NPOV. As an encyclopedia, how do we guide our readers who might be casual readers, researchers, NGO or UN officials looking for information about these subject matters to related events such as massacres, rapes and murders, assassinations and forced disappearances which are all different aspects of State terrorism. If we can do that in a so called NPOV I am all for it RaveenS 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This template tries to put together all aspects of State terrorism by a state called Sri Lanka. All articles linked are properly cited. If editors have issues with each article linked then they can properly tag each one and improve Wikipedia content about Sri Lanka. RaveenS 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Keep As other editors have mentioned, everything is well cited and referenced on Sri Lankan government atrocities, with *neutral* and *reliable* sources including SLMM decisions (Ceasefire Monitors from Norway and Iceland). Template upholds WP:NPOV. Trincomanb 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not for any other reason, its POV and not all the sources are independent, the sources themselves are questionable, I am not saying these people are not victims of war, the fact is the government never asked a soldier to rape a women or kill civilians, (without objection its the government duty to take action against them), in that case wikipedia servers wouldn't be enough to list all the people killed because of Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush (not to mention the LTTE massacre of Muslims in Baticloa and Jaffna Sri Lanka) etc.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason that Wikipedia will not have enough room about Khmer Rouge and Saddam Hussein is a very poor one because we have no such Wikipedia policies regarding server capacities and what can be and cannot be write based on such server capacities. Second State terrorism explains what is state terrorism and what is not. Rapes and murders done by soldiers not sanctioned by a state becomes State terrorist action only when impunity is assumed by the perpetrators because the judicial system is assumed to favor them. About your comments on citations, if you claim some citation are questionable why don’t you fix such citations. Thanks RaveenS

Also it should be pointed out you are voting again becuse you nominated this template, your delete comment should be a comment under your initial nomination. Note to admin: Please disregard the abouve delete coment from the total count. Thanks RaveenS

• Delete: per nom. Psivapalan 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThis user account has been specifically created for voting on this TFD[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Psivapalan See here] Potential Sockpuppet admin please use checkuser on this user before counting his/her voteRaveenS

• Comment: What!!!!! I don't know what you are talking about, I just add a vote and did some formating jobs for the comments section. I'm just new for wikipedia. Psivapalan 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry such things happen in a AFD and TFD, you are very experienced Wikipedian who created this account with a bunch of userboxes and then edited one India related article then found this TFD and voted perfectly like you knew how all this works. I have been around Wikipedia for 1 year and this is my first TFD:-)) Well any Admin will see through your account. Ciao. RaveenS 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep The article is important in detailing infomation that is NPOV and usually sourced to highly credible organisations such as Amnesty International. Deleting this article is falling into the systematic approach to clear Wikipedia of articles and infomation that highlight the attrocities that have been commited in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict and falls into none of the conventions for deletion. --Sharz 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: not it isnt..most of the sources are not credible at all.WSW is a ambigous source and write fairy tales. And there is no proof that the government was involved in the jaffna library burning nor in the 1983 riots.Involvement of ministers in the library incident is a merely a tamil propaganda, which has been debunked by some tamil politicians,such as late Mr Amirthalingam.His wife clearly stated that, gamini dissanayake was not involved in that incident.Iwazaki 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Are you confusing the subject matter of State terrorism wwith this template. This is about the template. So tell us why is this POV ? Thanks RaveenS 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment both the article and the template are POV.. template is POV,because GOSL did not involve in the following actions.

1 jaffna library

2 black july

further, this article has attributed every mishap/unfortunate mistakes happened during the war against LTTE as a act of terrorism. Mistakes happens in every war, even Americans with all their advance technology made terrible mistakes in war ,such as bombing the chinese embassy in former yugoslavia..Is this an act of state terrorism ??? !! So to point out every mishap,as an act of terrorism is totally POV..so you should remove those ambigous incidents from the template.Iwazaki 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• speedy Delete,in order to keep wikipedia standard this article is totally PVO.Not only that most of the data is based on some biased sites such as "WSW(world socialism web)" ,whose hidden agendas are clearly visible when you read the articles carefully..Also, what is most amazing to me is that, state terrosim is used as a tool by LTTE to justify their killings of innocent sinhalese/muslims/or even tamils(they called it representing (their)tamils).See the article about prabhakaran here. But so far, no has able to show any evidence about state terrorism before the inception of LTTE !!! LTTE was started in around 1974 and did their first murder in 1976, WHEN the so called state terrorism did not exist at all !! how can you say LTTE represent tamils against state terrorism ,when it was them who first started killing tamil politicians !!! so with simple logic,we can argue that all the government actions against ltte was due to the LTTE terrorism.

also, the this article does not qualify to be in the wikipedia.Simply because it is highly ambiguous..most of the articles,are based on some actions of SLA and they are very specious.cases such as mass graves were never proven, though GOSL had spent a lot of our tax money for the investigations.

if the actions by a single army personal can atribute to the state and hence call it state terriorism, we should name every country in the world as terrorist states !! And no army in the world can fight against terrorist or no police in the world can combat robbers.The world should be a free place to all the terrorists so they can send friendly suicide bombers every day, or thieves who can steal as they wish.May be thats what the editors of this article want to say.Iwazaki 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think you are confusing the article with the template. This is not a soapbox please tell us your reason why this template should be deleted or modified. Thanks RaveenS 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment nope. i think both should be thrown to the dustbin. reason?? i have given it already.Iwazaki 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You can say that these are 'slipups' and 'accidents' or can be attributed to particular people or units, however Amnesty and the U.S State Department, has described this as a 'systematic form of Terror based on the grounds of ethnicity'. I would rather believe the United States Government and Amnesty International over the GoSL and the Sri Lankan Army.

• Strong keep as per Elalan and many reasons to keep it to be given soon. --16^T 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong keep as per Elalan and many reasons to keep it to be given soon. Main reason is, 1983, where government had not done enough to stop the fighting. Many many incidents, Sri Lankan government is doing against Tamil and Muslim civilians in Sri Lanka. . Look at this too [3] --16^T 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment having uttered of reasons and promising that they will come soon, and taking nearly three days, its utterly disappointing that the above user(aka Sechzehn),has come up with nothing substantial to validate his position,which is to keep this ambiguous template.Having said his desire to have this template, one would expect him to atleast give some god points.Let us look at the main reason he gives for his defence, 1983 riots..Not a single government nor any organization accuses then government of SL for involved in the act of terrorism by organizing ang being a part of 1983 riots.Why would anyone accuses GOSL for something which they didnt do ??!! Further he has given a link in wikipedia, which may probably have been created by himself,as evidence to prove state terrorism.But so far, i have failed to see any incident in the given articles,other than LTTE accussing GOSL for killing civilians,to justify this template..Using human shields and assassinating every single threat they have,whether they support or oppose them,is a well known LTTE method.We all know what former LTTEer,and a very good friend of prabhakaran, karuna said about the assassination of taraki.some have created this template,to emphasize the importance of the state terrorism.Other than jumping into conclusions and engage in various logical fallacies(read elalan),they have so far,i would say rather disappointingly, failed to give any credible evidence for their cause.And still, they say template should be kept inorder to post their nonsense.

--Iwazaki 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• First, I kindly ask Iwazaki to use polite language and use gender neutral language. Although the most of the section in the link is created by me, the entire section is given with proper citation. --16^T 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i would like to ask the above user to assume good faith and not to be biased. have a look, sinhala goons.You keep missing the real personal attacks(on your own talk page !!) and get very upset when someone point a real issues. i have questioned this ambiguous template and its validity, and i believe with good reasons i have all the right to called it a nonsense.Having read your below response,my claim has become even stronger.

--Iwazaki 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• For those who suspect the link I gave above is biased: please see the citations given in the site's [4] right hand side, which gives you an insight that the Government of Sri Lanka's involvement in the 1983 genocide. I cannot bring them here due to licensing issues. Citations are given from international newspapers like Financial Times and The Times. The Times article there mentions about the rioters knew in details about the Tamil properties, which is almost impossible without Government information. Deleting this template from Wikipedia will result in not giving the readers about the string of actions carried out by the Government against non-Sinhalese, especially Tamils. --16^T 06:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment I looked at it and and none of the citations,which comes from international news-papers accussed GOSL for anything!! Only one news-paper accusess troops/police for not preveting riots(they give absolutely no evidence at all) and that report comes,surprisingly after 2 weeks !! Every news-paper had not attribute this riot to the GOSL and i wonder why you keep making this as an excuse to keep this template.Having become desperate, you have come with your latest,invention, that the GOSL provided information(address of tamil households,according to you)to rioters !! Just because one of the articles say,rioters knew where to attack ??!!. This hypothesis,alone should be enough to throw this template into the dustbin..

--Iwazaki 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also see this [5]. Indeed 1983 is long time before the Internet, so-called neutral sites doesn't have enough citations. These sites have one of the best documentation of the happenings of 1983 [6], where you can find that government has indeed triggered the riots. The violence was spread for 10 days and the government did nothing, until Narasimha Rao intervened. Denial of this is like Holocaust denial. I think this template deserves to remain in Wikipedia, for the coverage of the crisis in Sri Lanka neutrally, and for better understanding of the problem and the timeline of events. --16^T 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• answer You have given this, i would say biased site, as one of the citation.Its only claims that the GOSL and the army forces took part in the riots,but have mysteriously failed to given any credible evidences.Authers here try their best to hide the truth about 1983 riots.They have failed to mention that the GOSL had imposed curfew by JULY 26,two days after riots started.Also the number of deaths are highly exaggerated,and no one except eelamists believe in them. Further, it should be noted that the GOSL had infact took immediate meassures to protect tamils,actions such as making temporary shelters for an estimated 20,000 tamils in colombo.The numbers grew up to 50,000 and the whole area was protected by soldiers.And even the government provided security and weapons to prominent tamils,i remember one of my fathers friend(a doctor) was carrying a pistol given to him by GOSL.How can you even compare this with the Nazis holoucast ?? where they systematically destroyed the jewish popualtion. IF anything similar to that,i can give you the example of what happened to all the sinhalese who lived in north.They were driven out by the eelamists.And still in refugee states,while most of the tamils are back in colombo.
• From Iwazaki (talk · contribs)'s comments, anyone can see the resemblance of Iwazaki (talk · contribs)'s answer usually given by the people who deny the holocaust, by telling the real number is far low from what it really was. Look at this and anyone can find that the speech of His Excellency J. R. Jayawardene, The honorable President of ''Democratic'' Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka at the time, has provoked the riot [7] and how they tried to suppress the Tamils by force and murder. To check about the Rao's intervention, look at this link [8]. As given by many others in this discussion (esp. Elalan (talk · contribs) and Sudharsansn (talk · contribs)), there is indeed a state terrorism, and this template is necessary for giving the readers a good coverage and a bird eye's view of the crisis. --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell us ,when mr Rao intervened to this ?? You are making serious allegation here,and i would like to see,what made you to make this comment.Also please be noted, that there were no major incidents after JULy 28 . And on 29th police shot down 15 people, who try to loot (probably)tamils property.The curfew also remained.So, why you keep saying it continue for 10 days ??Are you counting the sufferings faced by sinhalese living in north,which i heard went on for several weeks !!

to sum up the flaws in your response. First, 1983 was not organized not supported by then GOSL,it was started by some angry people who were upset with the cold blooded murder of 13 innocent soldiers.Second, number of death talls are highly exaggerated in your given sites.Third, those given site is put up to defame the GOSL,SO there is a question mark over their real ambitions.Fourth, riots did not continue for 10 days.Fifth, riots were well over when india intervene,actually MR G.Parthasarthy visited SL in august(and its worth noting that,it was india who supported all the terrorists with training and weaponry,way before 1983).sixth, above user have so far,failed to mention actions did by the GOSL to protect tamils,as i have shown here.So its somewhat clear,that all the points he made are, hisPOV. The whole template is not only breach wiki policies(as shown by other users)is also full of nonsenses and should be thrown to dustbin ASAP.

--Iwazaki 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• First look at this statement and you will see that Iwazaki (talk · contribs) is trying to justify the killing of the people by claiming the killing was of "innocent soldiers" and did not tell a word about the killings done by Sri Lankan Army that triggered the killing, (the killing of the soldiers) which is indeed the topic of the discussion. Second, I would like to thank him/her for stating that there was an Indian official visited Sri Lanka to stop the riots (and thus supporting my argument), which is explicitly a reason for the external need to stop the internal state terrorism in Sri Lanka. The user is trying to justify the killings of the Tamil civilians by speaking about so-called killing of Sinhalese people in Jaffna - although I believe that no such killing occurred, I think the terrorism of the state can't be hidden from existence by giving its counterparts. -Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep: The article should definitely stay as it projects a perfect NPOV of the Sri Lankan crisis. Leaving aside pointless trivial comments on space and other unrelated reasons, I definitely think that Wiki is not a place where people cannot raise concern against the government or internationally established bodies/institutions. Anything done in compliance with Wiki rules is absolutely fine. For example, this BBC article pointing to 'Sri Lankan govt recruiting children to fight against LTTE' very simply and aptly provides definitive evidence against State sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka. Many other pages with international media coverage such as the Black July pogrom and a number of other massacres and most recently the FA on Nadarajah Raviraj all point to the simple and understandeable truth about State sponsored terrorism in Sri Lanka. As per Wiki's very own standards such as NPOV, Verifiability and other related concepts - this article/series is a must-stay and a very strong keep in Wikipedia. I honestly wonder why this article is even featured in this column. The effort to have such a perfect NPOV and verifiable page deserves encouragement than having a set of people criticizing it. Hats off to all editors who have taken efforts to compile info on the State sponsored terrorism and let this perfect Wiki page continue. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudharsansn (talk • contribs)

• Keep War crimes in srilanka should be noted in wikipediaPeace. --Nielswik_(talk) 12:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment should those war crimes be in this highly ambiguous template ?? And if those war crimes are actually mistakes happened during the war, when the GOSL was protecting its citizens against this brbaric LTTE , shouldnt we remove this ambiguous template ??Iwazaki 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentWhat is Ambiguous about this template ?RaveenS

Comment: I was about to ask that too. What is ambiguous about this template? Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

comment scroll up and read what i've written already

--Iwazaki 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the template, keep the article Leotolstoy 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC). The article is definitely important and should not be removed. But template is useless as it links to various parts of the article and is not useful.

Comment:Various parts of the article ?. I dont understand, it links many different articles not within one article. I hope this clarifies your concern. ThanksRaveenS 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As pointed out earlier, this template is extremely useful to categorize all the articles under one banner. Otherwise it is a very tedious task to search for incidents, especially some old ones. The template serves primarily as a one-stop point for this article/category. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete This is POV only. Please delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.241.205 (talk • contribs)

The above editors only edit is to vote here 216.95.23.95 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentSee lobbying for or against this tfdwe need your vote here against Wiki policy by one of the users who voted here216.95.23.95 06:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment how'bout this [9]

and this [10] Also,please sign in, without using your (anonymous) canadian IP,if you are sincere in making any proper arguments.

--Iwazaki 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment I had merely asked users to come and look at this page. I didn't even ask a vote nor expect one from them. The way it was done by pro Government supporters, it was transparent means of lobbying for delete votes. Elalan 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment neither did he.he was merely asking to vote too, not for it. so if hes gulty, then surely you are gulty too.Because you have asked from, not one but three users to have a look at this vote. And in case if you havent noticed, there isnt a single pro-GOSL supporter here(it seems)..GOSL is quite ineffective combating LTTE propaganda over the net..Call me pro-sri lankan or anti-terrorist ,but stop calling me something which i'm not.over!!

--Iwazaki 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• commentThis is a hilarious comment, you are not pro GOSL but your are pro Sri Lankan ??!! This type of "doublespeak" speaks for itself. I didn't ask anybody to even vote, I merely asked them to come and see this, which is well within my rights as a user. Please assume WP:AGF The raw evidence is there, so please don't confuse that with "lobbying" done on behalf of the GOSL pro Sri Lankan side. Elalan 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment having read the above comments by user elalan, i kindly asked others and the administrators not to take any of his comments seriously.let him first realise the difference between pro-srilankan and the pro-GOSL.Then he should, himself assume good faith,because he has been insulting my country with tons of red herrings.

--Iwazaki 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Looks like people are using internet kiosks/browsing centres to just leave in one-line comments and increase their POV further. Please engage in discussions here and state reasons why this should be removed than really trivial and unformatted 'delete' and 'keep'. That's the whole essence of Wiki and it is strange that WP is being quoted by anon IPs to delete this article. This is a place to verify and correct our reasoning and not bogus out each other with numbers. I see that same users have left multiple comments only to make it appear larger in number. Engage in discussions and get the best out of it. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: The template is completely NPOV and potentially libellous so it should be deleted. This is a encyclopaedia and is meant to represent facts and not conjectures and unproven allegations. We are talking about a legitimate people appointed body which is the government of sri lanka, hence we should be carefull about unsubstantiated allegations especially if we want to continue to maintain the quality of the wiki. One weakness is this template contains numourous links to yet unwritten articles, which degrades its quality. Take Raviraj, it has not been proven by any legitimate investigating team that it was state sponsered terrorism. Its just a conjecture by the eelamists and others, and such controversial points cannot be used unless they are proven facts. So by adding that to a template it is implying that the government of sri lanka sponsered the assasination which is completely libellous and not NPOV at all. We need facts and not theoretisations for a encyclopaedia. Most of the links in that template like kumar ponnambalam(no article yet exists), Joseph pararjasingham (nothing was proven to implicate the state), Taraki Sivaram(again nothing at all exists to prove that the state was involved, on the contrary the former LTTE commander Colonel Karuna categorically stated that the LTTE intelligence wing chief Pottu Amman was behind the assaination[11]) are completely libellous and NPOV. The template with its many links to unwritten articles, and unsubstantiated, disputed and libellous allegations against a legitimate goverment of a country does not fit the critieria of a responsible encyclopaedia and should be speedily deleted. A article can instead exist which can be edited to a NPOV, but this template is completely POV of the eeelam lobby and LTTE sympathisers,and has no place in the wikipedia which is heavily referenced and is a very popular resource. I would kindly request the authorities to make a speedy deletion of the template in question in the best interests of maintining the quality of the encyclopaedia.Kerr avon 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is pretty sad to note that an entire template which has been created based on completely verifiable information from the International media is being called as a piece of joke by claiming that people are operating against the govt of Sri Lanka. It seems like some kind of big-time inferiority complex by the opposition when it comes to reading cited information on everything being quoted in the pages. The Black July pogrom, the numerous massacres and almost everything else. Aren't there cited pages in Wikipedia against established governments including USA, India, United Kingdom and literally every other nation? Is Wiki some kind of a United Nations information wing in which people cannot write about established bodies/governments/institutions? Do note that the article has also been appended and edited by so many Non-South-Asian editors also, which clearly means that there are no vested interests and that they are only citing information and not manipulating it? Considering that Wiki strongly follows WP:5P and that it is not some governmental agency trying to put forth diplomatic information, all free-minded Wiki editors would definitely agree that this article/template should stay as it is to maintain the perfect NPOV of the Sri Lankan crisis. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How can you justify inclusion of the Raviraj link in the template when bodies like the Colombo-based International Center for Strategic Defense (ICSD) in there detailed analyis conclude that prime source for the assasination was the LTTE [12]. It shows that there is dispute and disputed links or templates which are not factual should not be allowed. Scotland yard is investigating the murder, I am sure that even the most die hard eelamist's will not question Scotland yards unbiasedness, so lets wait for the investigation to finish before making POV allegations.Editing by Non south asian editors does not make a article valid, and neither does it make that there are no vested interests. Once again this template is in no way NPOV, it has disputed claims which are completely unsubstantiated by reliable sourcers, and potentially libellous.Kerr avon 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You keep mentioning Scotland Yard is investigating the matter, but I don't see any citations from a reliable source. This argument is meant to show the government idea of being responsible but with empty claims. Numerous sources have pointed the murder took place opposite Military Police HQ. The Sri Lankan govt. doesn't recognize international treaties according to judgement paseed by its so called sham supreme court. The country by no means is yardstick to measure democracy,human rights or pluralism. It has utterely failed in all three. It ranks 25th among what are considered "failed states."

[13], beside Rwanda, where there was genocide resulting in loss of more than 1 million people and Ethiopia which lost many more millions due to starvation, war and ethnic cleansing. In such a situation where the country is considered close to being ungovernable, Sri Lankan justice, law, police investigation is all largely unreliable. In addition, through sri lanka's supreme court and govt. action, it appears it doesn't even recognize the International Criminal Court. It is well know the justice or what left of it is highly politicized and has become a tool to settle scores between politicians. Sri Lanka doesn't fare well in the corruption index [14]. None of what you have said are libellous at all, since no new claim is made. These are not merely claims made but rather facts and view with representation from reliable/respactable news sources that just happens to be against your POV. We are not creative enough to make this up, this is what is published in world's leading new sources. Elalan 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment the whole above paragraph is a red-herring.dont make this a soapbox.The whole paragraph is a direct insult to my country and its people..Srilanka is lucky to be at 25 th..With all the economical and human damages caused by the LTTEers its still stays ahead of a country like bangladesh !! Stop insulting our judicial system with your red-herrings.IF dont have anything to contribute to this discussion, stay silent because your insults and red-herrings only going to waste server space--Iwazaki 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Here is the link to show that scotland yard is helping, there are more in the local newspapers. I guess that you do not stay in Sri Lanka otherwise you will not be making irresponsible statements, there are a lot of tamils in Sinhala dominant areas like colombo (wellawatte, kotahena are well known tamil areas) and they are living in peace, thanks to the tolerance in the sri lankan community. Even when the governement does something correct you wont accept it [15].Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:The source you have shown mentions the following "President Mahinda Rajapaksha has asked the foreign Ministry to make an urgent request to Scotland Yard to assist in investigations into the assassination of Mr. Nadaraja Raviraj" It doesn't even say "Scotland yard is helping". It doesn't even say scotland yard is investigating. This is a clear misrepresentation of the source. Please get a reliable source to support what you claim otherwise your point is nullified. Elalan 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I acknowledge that there my statement was not quite correct, it should have implied that the GOSL has requested that scotland yard come and investigate it, which should be commended. The point I am makingthat the GOSL is genuinely interested in solving this murder and that we should not jump to premature conclusions. However getting back to the point, you are sidestepping the issue of why Raviraj killing is included under the template of state sponsored terrorism. There is currently no evidence, and no completed official investigation to substantiate your claims of state involvelent, its just theories by people which dont make facts, and shows what is wrong with that template and how potentially libellous and POV it is. In fact one of the eelamists sites (There reliability is inherently questionable as they are biased, however this is to illustrate the point)[16] is claiming that a prominent tamil politico is being hunted by the CID, which casts serious doubts on your claims of it being state sponsored. Maybe this "promninent tamil politico" had a score to settle with raviraj, etc, there are so many uncertainities. As such the template which is blatantly POV and is being used for propaganda and defamatory purposes against a legitimate government should be speedily deleted, we can have the article instead which can be edited, hacked, edit warred by the eelamists or anyone else to their hearts content.Kerr avon 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Colombo-based International Center for Strategic Defense (ICSD) is hardly a credible source. It is well known to be a Sri Lankan govt. think tank. Can you show supporting evidence of its International merit, other than its work showing on the dubious Asian Tribune. Surely something respectable from a think tank would get published in a peer reviewed journal, why was it only published in Asian Tribune blog site ? Elalan 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The point I am making is that this whole template contains unsubstatiated ,unproven and disputed facts. This template is been used as a propaganda label for the eelamists and anti government forces and is a blatant attempt at raping our country of Sri Lanka. Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Every time you use the terms Colombo-based, Govt-sources to support your side of the story, it is quite a joke. I don't think any govt in this world including that of my own country is ready to claim that their activities are tagged as 'State Terrorism'. Not a shred of evidence in support of the Sri Lankan govt in all articles coming under the template. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment let me guess...tamileelam.net, tamilnation.net,eelam.net,tamilnet,wsw are all reliable sources. And asian tribune,ICSD and even the scotland yard are GOSL sources..i wonder whose really joking here ??!!

--Iwazaki 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete :Per above. Sri119 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• commentAdmin please check the above account for "sleeper" sockpuppetry through checkuser. This user has done very few edits and some of latest edits appear very suspicious. For example setting of userbox [17] just before voting here. Furthermore the mannerism, particularly the use of "Happy editing!!!" [18] of this user shows strong similarity with User:Lahiru k [19]. In addition both of these editors seem interested in military related subjects related to Sri Lanka. This doesn't prove anything and Lahiru should be assumed to be innocent till proven otherwise. But the evidence does indeed raise suspicion on Sri119. Elalan 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete POV template which refers to an entirely unsourced use of the term "state terrorism". Contravenes WP:V, WP:NOR and is wholly unhelpful to readers, rather it is leads readers towards a particular point of view by its very title and selection of articles. Delete without question.--Zleitzen 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Contrary what has mentioned, the articles within the series clearly establish, "Sri Lankan govt sponsored state terrorism" is not original research. The title merely categories a whole series of events, that under wikipedia categorization fits "state terrorism" among other things. Elalan 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article categories a whole series of events - indeed it does. It categorises them as "state terrorism". Clearly a non-neutral opinion, as others appear to have a different view on these events. Therefore the template cannot remain and stay neutral in accordance with NPOV policy. See also, comments below.--Zleitzen 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Others may have different opinions, but this has been represented in the article themselves. Hence all significant POV do have due coverage, with dominant evidence and sources pointing to Sri Lankan govt. orchestrated actions that fits the definition of "state terrorism".

• Comment You write "Others may have different opinions, but this has been represented in the article themselves". Not good enough. it means you are only representing one opinion on the template. That is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is clearly a fallacy. WP:NPOV makes the rule quite clear on the first sentence. "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." A Template I hope you agree is not defined as an article. It does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contrevention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be NPOV because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Elalan 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What do you mean unsourced? Have you read through the articles under the 'State Terrorism'? Read through them to find out that all of them have been written with sourced verifiable statements and reports! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Are notable sources provided that describe each event as state terrorism? And if so where are they on the template? For such a claim should be sourced wherever it is found. Otherwise it is a breach of WP:V and WP:NOR. The problems inherent in this template are surely obvious. --Zleitzen 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentI think you confusing the purpose of a template. The template is series of links to a set of articles. The dominant claim for why its "state terrorism" is supported within the article themselves (where it should be noted), hence it would be redundant to show that again in template. However this is a compromise that can be worked out. We can indeed have the sources referenced on the template themselves to nullify your concerns. The template is meant to be a compact representation/categorization of articles and there is sufficiently strong damning evidence to indicate Sri Lankan govt. involvement in this and that would qualify under the label of "state terrorism". Elalan 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what a template is, and the role of a template, as I have created many myself. What it isn't is a tool to show one POV controversial opinion (state terrorism) that would need multiple sources. --Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. State terrorism is a a wikipedia article and is also an internationally reserached and published subject matter. The above user User:Zleitzen had an issue with State terrorim in Cuba that was a section in an article that I created.He belives there is no state terrorim in Cuba contrary to what Human Righst watch and Amnesty reports. Ever since he has cyber stalked me to assure that I cannot write about State terrorism. See his latest anticshere. His attempt is to ensure State terrorism as a subject matter is erased from Wikipedia so that State terrorim in Cuba cannot be written. Just a note fot admins when considering his POV pushing. Also there is merit that this template can be onsidred as not neutral but the first rule of Wikipedia is to disregard Wiki rules if it is in the way of writing a good article. State terrorism buy itself is an accusatory term like genocide, pogrom, war crimes. Hence they inherently cannot be nuetral. How do such subjects get treated in Wikipedia ? That is the question for the admin who will decide this case. ThanksRaveenS 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment How about addressing the inherent issues of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR with this template instead of attempting to discredit me and other users with straw man claims like "POV pushing" "wiki-stalking" and "He belives there is no state terrorism in Cuba" - which I have never said or written and is irrelevant anyway. --Zleitzen 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I do have to partly agree with user Zleitzen on this. What user RaveenS has said about State terrorim in Cuba and this here is outside of the scope of this template and is irrelevant and should be treated as such. However as I have stated earlier, a template is a component of an article. It cannot stand by itself much like a sentence in the body of an article. The article as whole has to be NPOV, but extrapolating Zleitzen's point each and every sentence needs to NPOV as well ?? Then why not take this to the next step, why not every word be NPOV ?? This is clearly not what is stated in WP:NPOV and is practically not possible nor is it warranted. It merely mentions the article as whole has to be NPOV. A Template I hope everyone agrees is not defined as an article. It does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contravention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be NPOV because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Elalan 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have removed the offending section. But what is germaine is that the user and I had a difference of opinion about another articles and that brought him here not that he would have been here anyway. That is important for the closing admin to know. I no longer have the difference of opinion with him. Thanks RaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What is obvious so far is that 1. The template is making unsubstantiated and potentially libellous and defamatory allegations against a legitimate government. 2. It has a lot of disputed claims and original research, the eelamists allege that Taraki Sivaram was killed by state sponsered terrorism, yet Colonel karuna strongly claims that LTTE arranged the killing and no court or independant investigation has found the Governement to be blamed. This is just one item, the same applies to to others lke Raviraj, Kumar poonambalam all which are mere conjectures and have no role in this wiki.3 The template is been not as a tool to help people but as a propaganda tool by the eelamists, pasting it over every missing persons and controversial article about sri lanka thereby defaming the government of Sri lanka. Whenever a assasination of a tamil occurs, even before any inquiry is completed they paste the name in that box (vide raviraj assasination and link inclusion) which is completely not NPOV and defamatory and libellous from the government of sri lanka point of view. Since it is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:NOR on several counts I strongly urge the speedy deletion of this template to prevent it been used as a defamatory tool by parties with a vested interest.Kerr avon 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

commentUser:Kerr avon is not assuming good faith and is accusing people who created this template and are arguing that it is to be kept as Eelamist, an accusation that it is a cabal. Someone should take it up with Admins. RaveenS 04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

commentThe term eelamist is a common term and use by supporters of eelam to discribe themselves [20] [21] and vice versa. It is not a derogatory term and was not meant to used in a derogatory manner by me. The term eelamist is a fact. However if you wish I can refrain from using it. Regarding the accusation of a cabal, well if the hat ("WikiProject_NCSLC") fits [22] you can wear it. Regarding good faith WP:GF the creators of the template have so far not shown any good faith in creating and maintaining the template, and neither have they been able to put forward any concrete evidence to back up the neutrality and reliability of the template.Kerr avon 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentAnyway my final comment on this matter , if Terrorism is a subject that can be dealt with in Wikipedia and State terrorism can be dealt with as a subject matter as well as State terrorism by country (3 articles so far) can also be dealt with as a subject matter with all this being NPOV why cant a Template that links these articles be dealt as a subject matter in Wikipedia? Yes we are asking for something new. For any newcomer to this situation the template will look POV but once we understand that this template is simply linking all articles that are written or expected to be written in NPOV, NOR and other wiki policies then why is this POV. Why would a template of all Al Quida terrorist attacks be POV. Why is all Hamas suicide attacks against Israel be POV? They are not, this is simply a template that is linking aticles that will through the Wiki process (just like supply and demand in the economy) will eventually be encyclopedic if not already. Why is this template POV ? If all the articles are encyclopedic and they are already in Wikipedia (AFD and more) then a template that links them is not unencylopedic. period04:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are sidesteeping the issues of complete NPOV and libellous and unproven imlications that the template makes. The raviraj and Taraki Sivaram etc links make anyone think that the government of sri lanka murdered them, when nothing has been proven and when even tamils are saying that the LTTE could have been involved in sivrarams murder and a tamil politico is suspected to be behind raviraj's killing. This is the most important reason that such a defamatory template which is being used for propoganda purposes by parties with a vested interest should be speedily deleted.Kerr avon 06:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well finally a good argument but let me counter, if all what you have is a problem with the articles that the template links then raise it at the article level and raise enough legitimate questions using citable sources that we will remove those links from the template. That's how the Wiki proces works through consensus. No one here is arguing the template in question is a static one. It should dynamic and edited often. I was the only one editing it now I find a large group including sleeper sockpuppets and just created sockpuppets:-)) wanting to delete it. Non of you made a good faith effort to either challenge any one of the articles the template linked and remove them from the template. Thus making it more useful to any reader or researcher. Editing and craeting in Wikipedia is a thankless job but it takes time and effort. Please be creative and try to create a template that links all LTTE attacks if it will make you happy. Thanks for your inputRaveenS 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your suggestion for the simple reason that the template itself gives a lot of prominence and apparent validity and authority to any facts contained within. If you see a template in a encyclpaedia you think that "ahh here is a condensed fact/highlight, which are true" etc.This template violates all the major wikipedia guidlines including WP:NOR, WP:GF, WP:NPOV, simply because it has original research,unsubstantiated and libellous allegations against a sovereign state and government which is legitimately appointed, a fact which you and most others have not handled. Take another highlighted name in that template Chandra_Fernando, the first impression that the template gives to any reader is that Father chandra fernando was killed by the government of Sri Lanka. However if we go to the article, we can see "According to a report by Tamilnet he was killed by a gunman belonging to the PLOTE organization working for the local Indian Army administration[3]. According to David Jeyaraj an ethnic Sri Lankan Tamil journalist based in Canada, he was killed by EPRLF/ENDLF operatives[4]. Some majority Sinhala nationalist websites have blamed the LTTE for the murder". Which just shows that there are no grounds whatsoever to have this mans murder listed under state terrorism, when there is a wide dispute as to who killed him in the first place. As such again I reaffirm that the sole purpose of this template is to defame the government of Sri lanka without substantiated facts, by parties with a vested interest, and should be speedily deleted.Kerr avon 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kerr as a reasonable guy in this debate and a doctor I am gald that you read Chandra Fernando. I created the article, an Eelamist in your view. This is how you write about an incident in Wikipedia, all points are given. He was killed during a time when Internet was not that popular amongst SLankans, so it is difficult to find information about him. But he was killed when the State authority in Batticalo were the IPKF. He was kiled after talking about the crimes commited by para military and IPKF. Hence conclusion by the article that he was killed by the state authority or proxy of the state authority i.e the Paramilitaries. That qualifies it as a State terrorism. Does not mean he was killed by the Sri lankan state but by a proxy of someone in charge of government. Also Valvetithurai massacre was done by IPKF. It is linked in the Template because the IPKF was the state authority. Please dont look at this template as an anti-Sri Lankan state instrument. It is simply linking articles that qualify as State terrorist actions by who ever was in charge or their proxy.RaveenS 17:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone is killed when he criticies someone doesnt mean that he was killed by the said party. For example Raviraj was very recently critical of Prabhakaran and other LTTE leaders sending their children abroad to study, now according to your logic Prabhakaran should be a prime suspect in his murder too. There is no definitive information to say that Fernando was definitely killed by the state or its proxy. The single most issue I have with that template is that it gives at first glance to the user the impression that the government of sri lanka was directly involved in these murders although as I have repeatedly pointed out there is no evidence, and that the template is been used for propaganda purposes being pasted on most controversial articles regarding Sri lanka in this wiki. The other glaring problems with this template like potential libelousnes, defamatory nature, lack of reliable sources have not been addressed.Kerr avon 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Kerr you are simply buttressing my point that the articles linked by the template has not been challenged by anyone as to whether they should be included or not. All what the sockpuppet that nominated this and other sockpuppets and few editors have been arguing is the easy way out. Delete the template because we did not do our home work of editing the articles and editing the template as to whether they belong in or not. ThanksRaveenS 13:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To begin with, would users who have already voted stop posting 'Strong Keep' or 'Strong Delete' again and again in this page. It almost tries to project a lopsided majority but the fact is the same users/editors are posting it repeatedly. Remember that the vote counts only once and not a million times if you post it repeatedly. If you want to say something post it as a 'Comment', you don't have to top it up with a vote every single time!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Votestacking and TfD initiation by Sockpuppets: Please note that votestacking is being done here by one of the editors involved in this debate through six sockpuppets/fake profiles and that almost a big part of this discussion has been initiated, handled and voted by only fake profiles.

When counting votes please do take into consideration all of the bogus votes. One of the editors has six fake profiles/sockpuppets which have also voted and it is quite debatable whether the other defendants are also doing something like this. Many of the user profiles which have voted here have not done any single edit in any of the Sri Lankan crisis pages at all. They seem to be popping up spontaneously and checkuser requests are pending for all of the profiles.

Kindly note that even this TfD in itself has been initiated by a sockpuppet (Mystic) of Lahiru. Kindly deem to consider this as a void TfD to prevent sockpuppets from deciding whether templates or pages should stay or not! If we are to proceed, before deciding on consensus I would even suggest that a checkuser is done on all suspicious profiles/one-line votes. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I would kindly request the admins that in addition to the votes, to consider the merits of the template in question and decide on whatever action based on the arguments put forth by both sides, and most importantly the templates confirmance to WP:GF, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Wikipedia is a very popular resource (just see how high it is ranked in search engines) and its neutrality and un controversial nature must be maintained.Kerr avon 10:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, responding to the point you are making - we need to understand that this whole thing, including the TfD has been framed up by one person who is very upset about it and has been supported and supplemented with evidence by his own sockpuppets. Ultimately there are really 3-4 people discussing it here, all others are only fake profiles. So answering your point, I think we are discussing it only to find out the merits or demerits, if any, about this article. This template completely conforms to all Wiki policies, primarily [WP:5P] There is no need to make it 'uncontroversial' or to cater to the google page rankings, but all policies are implicitly perfect to cater to the needs of everybody.

We can ultimately help everybody to take an informed decision with all the coverage for and against the GoSL. The reasons being quoted to remove this article such as 'popularity' and 'expecting' controversies are totally deemed void as that is not the primary goal of Wikipedia. It serves to present information, which is NPOV, Verifiable and many other things and not cater to Sri Lankan citizens or SL govt supporters. This should sum up the argument. Wiki does not have to be sensitive towards Sri Lankans or anybody, it can just present information and the readers are left to make a informed decision on any topic. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see how anyone who is unbiased can say that this template "confirms to all wiki policies". The inclusion of assasinations which many parties including the LTTE are suspected of doing like Taraki Sivaram, Nadarajah Raviraj, Fernando et al in the template, just show that it fails wiki guidlines of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR amongst others as I have highlighted in the above discussion many times. The wiki need not be sensitive but it should be neutral and contain verifiable information from reliable sources. It can not "just present information", it is a quality encyclopaedia which is referenced by many and needs to maintain a standard of quality and responsibility about what it contains. You are right about the template "not cater to Sri Lankan citizens or SL govt supporters", the only thing that this template caters to is the anti government forces, the LTTE sympathisers, and the eelam lobby who want to use this as a propaganda tool to paste over as many pages as possible and to slander the government of Sri Lanka. Regardless of who initiated this debate, the important points are that this template is disputed and valid points have been raised against its existance as per wikipedia standards and guidlines.Kerr avon 13:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You just don't seem to understand that Wiki is not about quality/no-quality or anything like that. We don't cook up stories to make it sound like good quality. There is nothing like good or bad here, it is just information which is not cooked up or made up, but just simple pure information. We only create and edit articles to conform to Wiki policies. The ultimate result needs to be an article, which does not project views of either party, it conforms to NPOV, it is verifiable and ultimately it is an article created for the reader to make an informed decision and not an article which needs to be bound by parameters of quality/font size/language/money as in other media publications, etc!!

With regard to your point about not regarding who initiated this debate, I think that cannot be taken so lightly for the very simple reason that right from start, the discussion went ahead with sockpuppets answering each other's question, etc!! So it is not a TfD initiated for good reasons or violation of Wiki policies, but only a strong case of personal time-pass!!

This template does not cater to the LTTE supporters for the very simple reason that info is cited. Before anyone doubts the verifiability, please go and refer to the articles coming under this template - All of it is verifiable!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the issue, the issue is not with the articles but with this template. However if indeed one checks through the articles referenced as you have suggested (see my analysis above), one can see that there is no definite proof that the state was involved and thus the template does not confirm to and is a blatant violation of wikipedia standards regarding neutrality amongs many others.Kerr avon 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Sri Lankan system of "rule of law" is perfect sham . Take one glaring example of the criminality of the current regime in Sri Lanka exposed by the Indian magazine Tehelka, Douglas Devananda, Tamil minister in current cabinet of Pres. Mahinda Rajapakse is wanted man in India, for murder, abduction of child and demanding ransom [23]. What does it say about the government when one of its senior minister is a man wanted for murder in the country next door ? Elalan 18:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename - The title is way too POV, what the hell is state terrorism and who decides what a certain act should be considered as such? And please see Wiki words to avoid:terrorism... Baristarim 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment :Please read State terrorism then read State terrorism by Syria and State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Then read Dirty war and Bosnian genocide you will know what state terrorism is. All those articles are not POV, how can a template be POV ? ThanksRaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism". While at this point I am not disputing whether the said incidents took place or not, editors of Wikipedia cannot arbitrarily decide whether any of these incidents constitute "state terrorism", as per Wikipedia policies. The creator of this template has labeled these incidents as "state terrorism" according to his POV. That is a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

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

Therefore this template is POV and is in violation of basic Wikipedia policies and should be deleted. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This is a template not an article, it links articles. If you have problem with the articles that's where you raise them. You have edited merely 2(may be more) of the above linked articles and in each you did not prove that they were not State terrorism. ThanksRaveenS 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Did you not read what I said? Again "I am not disputing whether the said incidents took place or not". So please do not bring that up again. It is not upto anyone else to prove that it isn't "State terrorism". It is up to you to provide evidence that independent organizations have labeled these acts as "state terrorism". Because right now it is your POV that these incidents are "state terrorism", and that is against the WP policies which I have stated above. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The statement by snowolfd4 that "No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism"." is patently false . Independent Organizations and experts have regularly called Sri Lankan government actions "state terrorism," here are some links off the top of my head, including Asian Human Rights Comission, (three of them from a BBC documentary with experts who label Sri Lankan government actions as state terrorism) [24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]. Elalan 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment that is not the issue. The issue here is - is there universal uncontroversial agreement that these acts are "state terrorism"? If there is, then no problem. If there isn't, and there is some disagreement that these acts are "state terrorism", which is clearly the case here, then the template does not meet NPOV requirements. A template can't portray a POV side of the story. Nor should it take a disputed euphemism such as "state terrorism" and attribute acts that you yourself have had to dig up sources for - which in themselves could be disputed. Most importantly, of course, this template will be consistently challenged by every one other than the small group of editors here who are on one side of a POV dispute for as long as it remains. Therefore it would save a lot of everyone's time if the thing was deleted now. Which would of course be in line with the regular deletions of every other category and template of this nature at wikipedia.--Zleitzen 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Repeating a fallacy over and over again doesn't make it true. "State terrorism" has a definition or set of criteria. See Britanica's entry on it. There are number of fallacies in your argument. WP:NPOV makes the rule quite clear on the first sentence. "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." A Template I hope you agree is not defined as an article. They are different namespace, articles being under the main namespace and template being under the template namespace. A Template does not stand by itself outside of an article, but rather as a component of an article , comparable to a sentence or a paragraph. The articles linked to it have citations backing it. A single sentence can have representation of one POV, this is not a contravention of WP:NPOV, but the article as whole has to be NPOV. So therefore representation of a dominant independent assessment of these events within the template is just like a sentence with inline wiki links to the respective wiki articles. Hence each and every individual sentence in isolation or for that matter template doesn't have to be representation of all significant POVs because they are never presented in isolation. Its always part of an article and hence this template doesn't contravene the WP:NPOV rule. Templates belong with the "Template namespace" and articles belong with the main "namespace." This is clearly defined under wikipedia rules and I think this nullifies your argument. Elalan 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question This template asserts in wikipedia's own voice that the linked acts are state terrorism, is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these acts are state terrorism? (by the way, a Template isn't an article, true, it should actually be more subject to NPOV scrutiny than an article, rather than less). Please answer.--Zleitzen 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The title of the template as it would appear in the article is "Allegations of State terrorism in Sri Lanka." So what they have in common are allegations of state terrorism which is dominant view and that stands factual. You are advocating absolutism. If we go with your philosophy, the science templates will all be a wreck. Apart from logic, everything else has a degree of uncertainty to it. Off course there are Sri Lankan government supporters screaming and howling all over here throwing all sorts of flak , but the dominant view has citations to back it up. The bit about "it should actually be more subject to NPOV scrutiny than an article, rather than less" bit is your commentary , which you are more than entitled to but its not the rule right now on Wikipedia so I think you have conceded the argument. If you want to argue components of an article should be more scrutinized for NPOV, in that every sentence should have all POVs represented ? Good luck on that. Elalan 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm sorry that you think that those users above who believe this template favours one point of view are "Sri Lankan government supporters screaming and howling all over here throwing all sorts of flak". The question still stands, is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these linked acts are "state terrorism"? A simple yes or no would suffice. --Zleitzen 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentLet me make it clear, I didn't say all users who opposed the template are Sri Lankan govt. supporters. Your opposition to the template falls under a different category. I merely said, that yes there are Sri Lankan govt. supporters kicking up dirt and opposing the template, their POV (such it takes up too much server space, its an insult to Sri Lanka, its defamatory, Sri Lankan govt. was never accused of state terrorism by 'independent' organizations etc. etc.) from an academic angle carries minimal weight and is not a valid litmus test of whether its controversial or not. Nevertheless, no issue whatsoever (whether it maybe humanities or sciences) will get a guaranteed (the key word is guaranteed) yes from the loaded question (criteria) you have set. This is simply because you have loaded your questions with absolutisms. It is hardly verifiable WP:V, since there is also a time variance factor involved. So therefore the answer to your questions gets us nowhere and I don't see how it is relevant to determining inclusion of certain content in templates or not. Elalan 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Zleiten, I will try to answer your question. The template links articles that are supposedly actions that fit the description of what State terrorism is. That is it was done by the state or state proxies on civilians. Now I cannot vouch for each and every article linked will fit that exacting definition. But that’s why we have a Wikipedia process for not an Encyclopedia Britanica where what is written is what is written. Most of the sock puppets and others who are objecting to this template except truly neutral observers like you have not made a single effort to edit the template. I. E. to remove articles that don’t fit the definition or to prove in the articles themselves that they are not State terrorism. I expect the Wiki community to vigorously edit the article as well as the template so that at the end we result that we agree with. I know contesting this template is part of that process and trying to keep it also is part of the process. Now does that answer your question? I.E assuming good faith, I did not create this template to demonize a country, simply to link all articles and aspects of what will fit the accepted definition of State terrorism so that an average reader or a researcher can easily find all the examples needed under the subject matter of State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Infact I would like to do it eventually to all countries that have been accused of State terrorism in the world, not just Sri Lanka. As I said earlier direct reading of the title of the template one will get the impression that it is POV, but the subject matter itself is accusatory by nature like Genocide, Pogrom, Holocaust, Massacres, Forced Disappearances and War crimes. If I create a template to link all genocides in the world such as Bosnia, Armenian (which is hotly contested by the Turkish government), Jewish will it be POV ? I think the above template is similar in nature. It links number of incidents and that should be vigorously contested and edited unlike what we have seen now. RaveenS 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I created this article yesterday Thandikulam massacre. Now it is not in the Template. But the wiki community should decided, should it or not ? Would you place it in the template ? 22:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Also see 2006 Mannar massacres At least some effort has been made to edit it since it was created. Will it fit the definition of State terrorism. I think so. RaveenS 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. RaveenS, you write that you have created the template "simply to link all articles and aspects of what will fit the accepted definition of State terrorism". Be careful, I have tried to explain to you on other occasions elsewhere that WP:NOR explicately forbids such interpretations without attribution or reliable sources. See

• Question (asked again as the above comments didn't appear to answer this more fundamental issue) Returning to the WP:NPOV issue. Even if an editor can find sources that describe events as "state terrorism", is it a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view that these linked acts are as a result of "state terrorism"? Please answer briefly and succinctly - preferably "yes" or "no".--Zleitzen 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can you please detail the reason why you think this question is relevant to the issue at hand, particularly since I have shown the question is loaded with absolutisms ?RaveenS

Comment OK you mean to say that all these actions have to be collectively attributed to State terrorism by someone before we can list them as state terrorism in the template? If that is so it breaches WP:NOR because we do have to go back and edit the template to match a collective citation. A question for you ? If the template is renamed as Human Rights violations and links to all Human Rights violations by all parties (that is if there is a collective citation of them as such) will it not meet both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV ?RaveenS

Comment There are resources that show these events collectively to be part of state terrorism, hence it doesn't fall under 'original research categorization', plus this view is the dominant view. In many instances, the Sri Lankan government hardly gave a rebuttal to the attack, or have been acknowledged by experts in the field to be hollow. Elalan 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Obviously the answer is no. Several of the links in the template like Nadarajah Raviraj, Father Fernando, Taraki Sivaram are controversial with no one certain as to who killed them as I have repeatedly claimed above. Blaming them or even alleging that the state was involved is libellous and defamatory and POV as there is no evidence to say the government was involved. Alleging is a POV and should not be allowed in a template. Once again I restate that the sole purpose of this template is not to help the wikipedia user but as a tool which is used by people with vested interests which is used more like a poster which can be pasted over as many pages as possible and to defame the Sri Lankan government. One a side note it is very sad to see responsible Tamil's who have the pleasure of living abroad are trying their best to defame my country of sri lanka unreasonably with wild allegations, forgetting the thousands of tamils that are living quite comfortably in the heart of colombo thanks to the good will of the singhalese, they are forgetting the huge amounts of food and essential supplies sent by the government to the north and east which are taxed on the singhalese that they much hate. All they want is to use wikipedia to push their anti government and eelam POV, and if this is allowed to continue with templates like the current one in question which violate all the fundamental guidlines which the esteemed wikipedia is based on, wikipedia's neutrality will seriously be eroded. I strongly suggest that the template be speedily deleted in accordance with wikipedia policy.Kerr avon 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that no evidence to say the government was involved is patently false. Neutral observers and sources show otherwise. Elalan 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Claiming Alleging is a POV is baseless. There is no rule to say its not allowed in a template. Screaming the same comment over and over again is hardly a convincing argument and I sense desperation on your part . Your so called on the ground assessment is runs contrary to all the main human rights organizations reports and the reports of BBC [30], where it mentions, particularly civilians in the North and East are in "Conditions for them have significantly deteriorated, and many now are literally living in terror." and other new agencies, that mention hundreds of Tamils are abducted and disappear night after night. You are making some wild assertions, which border on observing tea leaves and please understand, this forum is not a soapbox. Elalan 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Dis regarding the Histrionics of an emotionally charged doctor above, User:Zleitzen is correct in asking for citation that all the articles that are list on the template should have a citation that it is State terrorism. If such as citation is available then it does not breach WP:NOR So apparently we have to go to basics and find that citation. But then I went to some other templates such as Template:SriLankaHistory, is NOR to be interpreted correctly, for this template to be kosher should it have a citation that all articles linked in it are cited as belonging to Sri Lankan History. I couldn’t find any Templates with such a citations attached to them. Just curious ? as this was my first template. How is NOR adhered in template creation, where is the place for references ? Also I would as Dr. Kerr Avon to keep his histrionics and lectures about what I should and should not do to his personal domain and stop using this as a soapbox. Very easily people can label him as an apologist for a genocidal regime or worse but that would be hyperbole. Wikipedia is not Sri Lanka and people don’t get killed for their views here, just stick to the subject matter. Next time the doctor breaches the protocols I will report the good doctor. RaveenS 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Your statements against me like "apologist for a genocidal regime", just shows your bias against the government of sri lanka for everyone to see and casts serious doubts as to your claimed neutrality.Kerr avon 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK. Despite asking the question twice, the one solid answer I have received is obviously no from User:Kerr avon. Who believes that it is not a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view. If I am reading this correctly, Elalan doesn't believe the question is relevant. RaveenS hasn't answered the question but has asked another. Therefore can I take it that the template is not representing a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view?--Zleitzen 00:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In my view the answer is YES, otherwise I would'nt have linked them to begin with. But you raised a serious point I and I genuinely have a question. In many AFD's I have seen major edits done even to the name so that the article can become acceptable to the WIKI community. How will you suggest to make it NPOV ? second how do you make Templates NOR through citatiosn as we as the exmaple cited and others I lokked at did not. Just seriously curious. ThanksRaveenS 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also I dont understand what is the point of asking this question universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view. What is in life is universally agreed upon un controversial point of view. Read Theory of evolution. You would think that it would fit your definition, but even that has room for creationist doesn’t it. Few things qualify such as the World is not flat. Is Mary was Jesus's mother a universally agreed, uncontroversial point of view ? A simple ye or no would suffice. Thanks RaveenS 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The question is obviously badly worded. As far as I have seen, YES there is strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view that these acts were state terrorism from neutral, reliable sources. Elalan 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK. (The question seemed to me to be very clear) So unlike Kerr Avon, you both believe that these acts are universally agreed to be "state terrorism". Here's another question. If there are those who dispute the claim that these acts were state terrorism, what would they call the template? Perhaps Kerr Avon could answer that?--Zleitzen 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• RaveenS and myself agree there is strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view that these acts were state terrorism from neutral, reliable sources. Elalan 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK. So we have strong agreement and largely' uncontroversial. Above you write that the government and its supporters have a different view. If you were playing devils advocate, what would they call the template? --Zleitzen 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry for having to do some wiki lawyering at this point, but I am not going to incriminate myself by possibly contravening WP:AGF :). I'll wait to hear what the MD has in mind. Elalan 01:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK I see where you are going, you want to see what the consensus would be. I are more than willing to change the title as long as it is NOR and NPOV. I have already suggested one. Dr. Kerr has not suggested any modification yet. Let's wait for his suggestion. If there is one, means then there is really a meeting point here. I hope your wish comes to fruition. Thanks RaveenS 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly recommend the template to be speedily deleted for the simple reason that it implies that wikipedia sanctions the views that the state was behind the murders when as I have said that there is no consensus from multiple reliable sources that the government was behind it. How any unbiased individual can claim that thier allegations that they were state sponsored is largely uncontroversial is beyond me and shows their bias. The proponents for the inclusion such as RaveenS have repeatedly demonstrated there bias against the government by calling it a "genocidal regime" and there claims should be questioned as to the neutrality. The main issue here is regarding this template and not the articles perse, as the template is being used more as a banner to slander the GOSL by putting it on as many pages as possible. There was no article regarding Nadarajah Raviraj before his murder, however what happened was the moment he was assasinated a article was created and his name was added to this template in a attempt at tarnishing the goverment of sri lanka even before any proper inquiry was allowed to take place and with considerable dispute as to who exactly did the murder. Scotland yard is investigating the killing [31] and the government is paying the hefty fee, which shows the goverments honest efforts to solve the murder. This just shows what is wrong about letting this template exist, even if it was reworded as to "alleged state terrorism in sri lanka", who is going to judge as to what is going to be put in and on what grounds should links be included? How many people have to allege something against the state before it is taken as noteworthy to be included? Allowing this template to exist even with rewording will lead to further controversy and edit wars. We have a article called State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka and let anyone edit it to its hearts content, rather than having a template which is used as banner advertisement against the sri lankan government with unsubstantiated, potentially libellous, defamatory allegations. This wiki should represent a unbiased view and cannot be allowed to be used as the eelam lobby or the anti goverment forces soapbox. Anyone can have any theories or allegations to make, that is their right and if they wish to make it public they can put forth there own website and spew their rhetoric. However the wikipedia is a public resource and a international asset which has standards of responsibility and neutrality to maintain and cannot be allowed to be used as a propaganda tool to advertise a particular sections view. I am tired of this debate and will not contribute further, I beleive that the wikipedia administrators are intelligent folks who will make a decision in the best interests of the wikipedia and I will respect that decision.Kerr avon 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In many instances, the neutral Sri Lanka Monitory Mission, headed by Norway and with assistance from Iceland have made reports of ceasefire violations by one or the other side. Both sides in the Sri Lankan conflict called upon Norway to form and observe the ceasefire. These monitors gather evidence from the actual site of the events and have preformed proper investigations before reaching decision of ceasefire violation. The Sri Lankan government has been shown to be insincere in some many occasions, that the EU has asked for UN Human Rights Monitors, though decision have been made to come to Sri Lanka monitor in a bid to prevent further deterioration of human rights abuses and state terrorism from perpetrated by Govt. forces. Although SLMM is there, it doesn't have power to stop or arrest people it believe who were responsible for these incidents. Knowledgeable, authoritative sources in field take the word of the SLMM and other international human rights organizations that have come hard against the Sri Lankan govt. perpetrated incidents. All statements are well references and substantiated with respectable neutral sources within the article themselves. Only pro government supporters scream that is POV or biased simply because the Sri Lankan government was caught red handed and the truth doesn't look pleasant for their side. Elalan 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for the purposes of clarification I would like to single out Elalan's words above, who is one of the supporters of this template, "Only pro government supporters scream that is POV or biased simply because the Sri Lankan government was caught red handed and the truth doesn't look pleasant for their side." Which seems to contradict his earlier statement that the template represents a "strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view". If there needs to be any more evidence that this template is only designed to show one point of view, and a controversial one at that, which does not take into account the "pro government POV", this is it. On that failure to address NPOV alone it should be deleted without further comment.--Zleitzen 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentOnce again you have misrepresented what I said and ran with it. You have conveniently forgotten to mention "strong agreement and largely uncontroversial point of view from neutral, reliable sources " The key words you have missed is from "from neutral, reliable sources." NPOV is meaningless without taking into account neutral, reliable sources of info, otherwise the encyclopedia because place to display propaganda. Elalan 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment My final comment, no evidence provided with examples that it fails WP:NOR as was requested. No compromise put forward by contested parties although I had thrown in the idea of changing it to Human Rights Violations and be inclusive of all such events in Sri Lanka. The template should be vigorously edited to prune all articles that don’t fit the criteria of State terrorism rather than deleted. ThanksRaveenS 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The 3 BBC articles linked to are actually 1 BBC documentary. I watched part 3, and no "expert" even said the word "state terrorism". I'll comment about the other 2 when I watch them. As for the other 3 articles, 2 are from the Asian Human Rights Commission and the other by Quintus Perera. Their articles on Wikipedia (or lack of them rather) say a lot about how reliable they are. Please read WP:RS for info as to what is a reliable source.

That aside, more to the point, citations have to be provided which state that any of these acts have been called state terrorism. Otherwise, like I said above, listing them as "state terrorism" is a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

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

So please provide citations for all the individual incidents in the table above, or accept that listing them as "state terrorism" is your POV. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Why don't you go through all the links by yourself and cite it? Just because you posted a blank table here does not mean there isn't evidence, or that you have only listed articles which may or may not have such evidence, or by any logic this remark of yours is truly facetious!! Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment That is exactly my point. There is no mention of any of these incidents been called "State terrorism" in the citations. And it is not up to me to find citations for them in other articles. See WP:RS. It says very clearly, in bold text

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question

It is not upto anyone else to provide evidence. The burden of evidence is on those who want to keep the template. All the incidents in the template all listed above, so please provide individual evidence, or like I said, accept that it is your POV that they are "State terrorism". --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User snowolfd4 argument is quite comical. He first argued there was no instances of state terrorism accusation against the government after been shown evidence to the contrary, then he claims Asian Human Rights Commission [32] is not a WP:RS, because it doesn't have a large enough wikipedia entry. How comical is this argument ? Then he claims the BBC documentary on Sri Lanka doesn't have references to state terrorism but openly refuses to see parts 1 and 2, but claimed to have watched part 3. What can you do when the user deliberately refuses to watch the other two parts where the references are made. I had earlier mentioned clearly the three links were to one BBC documentary on the Sri Lankan conflict. These experts argue the Sri Lankan government continues to use state terrorism as tactic against the Tamil insurgency. That statement itself covers a large swathe of incidents, although other sources are available pointing directly each case by case. Elalan 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

3 words: PROVIDE THE SOURCES. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just to show your point to be flawed, I'll show just one of the events indeed has been labeled an act of state terrorism, by neutral authoritative sources to nullify the claim that template shouldn't exist. A source from the Asian Centre for Human Rights mentions [33] "The Sri Lankan government has unleashed State terrorism since the collapse of the Geneva talks of February 2006 between the LTTE and the government." and it mentions the assassination of Ravriraj as first example in that document. Here is the article from D.B.S Jeyraj, an authoratative (neutral journalist) who mentions that killing of Raviraj to be act of state terror [34] "Given the prevailing political culture where all Tamil dissent is ruthlessly suppressed a voice such as that of Raviraj’s too had to be silenced from the viewpoint of those wielding power in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.. There is a coordinated campaign going on in the North - East where all Tamils with leadership potential are being killed, disappearing, leaving the country or simply becoming invisible.This trend spills over to Colombo frequently.The instruments of this state terror are very often Tamil groups and organizations aligned with the Government."

• Comment Those who support the template are welcome to provide evidence from reliable sources that assert that the above are acts of state terrorism. But regardless of whether these can actually be found, there would still be a notable and significant point of view that would disagree, ie the view of the government and its supporters. A point of view that even the supporters of this template acknowledge exists. Thus meaning that the template would fail NPOV guidelines by favouring one point of view, asserting that the acts were "state terrorism" in wikipedia's own voice, and not taking into account the opposing point of view.--Zleitzen 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There maybe government supporters who think and believe maybe pigs can fly, there are tooth fairies etc but in these cases, neutral, reliable ,authoritative sources show otherwise and thats what counts. There is infact no controversy amongst these reliable sources. The voice says "allegations of state terrorism" which is the neutral fact of the matter. In many of these instances, the govt. has made no formal attempt to even deny accusations against them, while its fan base here jumps up and down. Everyone is entitled to their merry thoughts on a blogsheet, not an encyclopedia. Elalan 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Shall we run through WP:NPOV once again?

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.

The template, though now changed to read "allegations" which is preferable, still fails all the above points. It fails to provide details of who believes what and why. It fails to attribute the claims to reliable sources. You also write "in these cases, neutral, reliable source argue otherwise and that's what counts". If such reliable sources exist, why should anyone believe that they are more neutral than contradictory reliable sources? You might find them more neutral, but other people clearly won't as observed above. They will find their sources to be more neutral. This is the very basis of a POV dispute, and the wilfull inability to view two sides of an argument - writing things such as "the view of the government is akin to pigs can fly, there are tooth fairies" is the root cause. If you cannot come to terms with the basic tenets of fairly presenting different points of view, then I suggest it is you who consider a blogsheet.--Zleitzen 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lets go through this one more time, WP:NPOV is applicable to an article as a whole. It has not been stipulated to apply to components of an article, such as a template. A Template as you will well agree is not an article . A Template in equivalent terms is like a sentence (a component) of an an article. Each sentence doesn't have to adhere to NPOV. But the article as a whole does have to adhere to NPOV. Nevertheless, under your setup, you would like to see flat earth society members views and POVs on the article titled planet earth ? Please answer this question, a yes or no would suffice. Try to mention that the 'round earth theory' is a massive conspiracy ? The fact is there is no contradictions/controversy amongst the neutral reliable, authoritative sources on this. Airing fringe, wild POVs and misrepresenting them as academically major POVs destroys the encyclopedia. Where there is found to be one which is considered controversial event, it would obviously be removed from the template because there is controversy amongst reliable sources as to who did it. The pseudo-controversy is made by govt. apologists and govt. propaganda sites, that have time and time again been disproved quite comically and have shown to have limited credibility and this has been done so academically. These sources wouldn't enter the debate, because they don't adhere to WP:RS to start with. Elalan 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, but your views above obviously do not comply with NPOV (1) A template isn't a sentence. It links a series of articles under one title, thus favouring the view that the articles are matched to the title, when there is in fact a dispute. (2) The view of a government or its supporters is not a "fringe theory". It is a significant point of view. Regardless of how comical you find it, regardless of how lacking in credibility you find it, regardless of whether you think these people are "government apologists", regardless of whether you believe it is a pseudo-controversy, regardless of how academic and neutral you believe your sources are (as yet to be provided on the white table). Your views on this are sadly of no consequence. Others with different points of view disagree with you. All significant views should be treated fairly without favour as per policy. That is the basis of neutrality and the basis of wikipedia. --Zleitzen 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• CommentClaiming "The view of a government or its supporters is not a "fringe theory. It is a significant point of view" without specific instances or context makes your argument a POV. Your now claiming irrespective of the circumstance, that its always the case.. that would be a clear example of POV. Therefore under your setup, you would like to see flat earth society members views and POVs on the article titled planet earth if hypothetically a government endorses that view  ? Please answer this question, a yes or no would suffice. Elalan 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No. It is not a significant view and thus fails guidleines. The view of a government and its supporters is a significant view - and if a government or significant group endorsed the flat earth theory, then it would have to be presented neutrally and fairly as per NPOV guidelines. That is how neutrality works.--Zleitzen 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Incorp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template a single line of text with no special formatting. Maybe it was created to save its creator a tiny amount of typing (in 2004). A simple copy-paste of the text into all 17 of the linked articles will eliminate the need for this template. Delete. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 07:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Substing is equivalent to a copy-paste but even faster (and if it was 1700 rather than 17 articles, there'd be bots that could be used to do it.) --ais523 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Template has now been subst'ed from all linked articles. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 03:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GT

[edit] Template:Tojo

[edit] Template:Fake News Alert

Template:Fake News Alert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template asks readers to email the FCC to challenge the license of a TV station that has presumably been airing fake news; that presumption is not even brought up in the articles where it's currently used, e.g. WPIX, WCBS-TV, WJBK, although Google suggests these allegations are from SourceWatch. I'm against fake news as much as the next guy, but asking readers to file a complaint with the FCC certainly isn't NPOV. A link to the allegations would suffice, and Template:SourceWatch would seem to perform that job well. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. This template arguably violates WP:NPOV. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, only to be informative, but it serves the broadcasters right. They use our airwaves and pollute them with "corporate propaganda" (or unnecessary advertisements for news) -- in other words, they can air the ads some time else, just not during the newscast!!! But unfortunately, even then not all of the advertisements are accurate. For example, "Sinclair Terrorizes with I-Porn" [35] -- Pittsburgh's WPGH mentions something about "I-Porn", but what the reporter doesn't tell you is that she's on their payroll of the companies whose products she may or may not be pushing. Another example, "Huey Lewis and the Fake News" [36] -- Los Angeles' KCOP brought in Huey Lewis to fool its viewers into buying a hardly known hearing aid from a rarely known company. The real problem with this is that all identification of the medical firm has been removed by way of VNR. The worst example came Meridian's WTOK in a piece called "Hot Air from WTOK-11" [37] -- In this piece, the VNR from an oil company here is an assault on Katrina victims in Mississippi. Sources such as Free Press, Center for Media & Democracy and of course as stickguy mentioned, SourceWatch and Google all call it "Local Television's Dirty Little Secret" for a reason!!! There are at least 111 stations reaching well over a third of the country airing fake news -- Sinclair, Disney, CBS and News Corporation are among the worst violators. This is part of the result of a corporate empire that values profit over the public interest!!! It is just ridiculous and cruel how they can take advantage of our airwaves this way. They should be ashamed of themselves!!! We need to do whatever it takes to come up with new ways to get the point across... Wouldn't you agree??? It is after all, only the right thing to do!!! Now I have a great deal of enthusiasm for The E.W. Scripps Company and especially their lighthouse logo -- but I was upset to find out that Cincinnati's WCPO had also engaged in such activity. This is an absolute disgrace!!! But there's more -- many stations have aired fake news on more than one occasions and unfortunately some more than others according to Free Press and the CMD [38] and on November 14 they filed a formal complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. If nothing else, perhaps we can come up with a way to merge the two templates and convert it into a "super-template" -- all this so we can monitor the activity of our stations and at the same time, file our own complaints to the FCC and (if we wish) asked that the stations' licenses are challenged. Now personally I think they should just have their licenses revoked!!! I hope you consider something reasonable or at least notify me if and when you do delete the template. This is a very important issue. I was just trying to help out in the situation... Please consider my statements!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 11:22 AM EST
  • Comment: I sympathize but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 00:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. DCEdwards1966 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as blatant violation of policy and attack template. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom †he Bread 22:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now wait a minute, before you do that -- let's try to compromise!!! This is after all a very serious issue and I believe everybody at Wikipedia should know!!! Let's just talk this through!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 8:08 PM EST

If you can find verifiable information that these stations have been airing fake news, then include it in the article as part of the text. --tjstrf talk 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's against NPOV for us to advocate anything, including emailing the FCC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. To clarify, I meant that if you can cite it properly, you can include information about their broadcasting fake news in the article, not that you can advocate whining to the FCC. Sorry about that. --tjstrf talk 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's easy! Free Press and the CMD have on display a map of stations that have been documented and by clicking on a "dot" will open up another page with videos you can watch. The videos are in QuickTime format. Click here to go there... In addition, I already enclosed three links to WTOK, WPGH and KCOP. I hope I'm getting your attention... Meanwhile I will look into the matters on SourceWatch and will add them to the articles in the immediate future... --WIKISCRIPPS 07 WED NOV 15 2006 11:50 PM EST

Using their newscasts as a source for their being fake news directly will violate our policy against including original research in articles. Be careful with that. --tjstrf talk 05:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, extremely inappropriate use of templates. WP:NOT a soapbox. Also hopelessly US-centric (I assume the "FCC" is some sort of US agency or council or something). Xtifr _tälk 05:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:LetsSingIt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entire purpose for this template is to create links to copy-vio material. WP:C and WP:EL both prohibit such links. ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've orphaned this template... it had 54 translations before I did so. ---J.S (t|c) 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Naconkantari 03:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Facilitates links to copyvios, in violation of Wikipedia:External links. To wit, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." Get rid of it. I'm half-tempted to speedy it, but I suppose a little extra process never hurt anyone. ;) --Slowking Man 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kafziel ^Talk 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't know it violated the rules. Delete it then... Just have to removed the whole thing from Wikipedia then, from all the articles it's featured in. -- Luigi-ish 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Already taken care-of. ---J.S (t|c) 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete gotta go, per nom †he Bread 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, author (Luigi-ish) agrees to delete per above. Neil916 (Talk) 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - if this is indeed linking to copyvio material, why does the LetsSingIt.com article read as though it is describing a legitimate website? --Stoive 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.