Talk:Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present)

Grammar fixed?

Yeah, there were a lot of grammar issues but I swept through the article with Grammarly and as far as I can skim, looks pretty good. Feel free to add it back if there are still issues yall. MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Blaming all on China?

I edited out a sentence that loosely implies the Chinese funded port is the cause of debt crisis. There are two things wrong with that.

According to Lowly Institute, Sri Lanka is not a victim of a Chinese debt trap. The external debt owed to China is about 10% of the debt stock in April 2021. The bulk of Sri Lanka’s external debt stock is owed to international capital markets (47%), followed by multilateral development banks (22%) and Japan (10%).

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/sri-lanka-s-simmering-twin-crises

Also even during the pandemic, the port actually saw a growth in transhipments.

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/Oppo48 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Lets talk on up voting

Important 2409:4050:2EC4:8F0B:C948:DDD4:8495:1B13 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the Background's first paragraph too biased?

I'm not well versed on the economic condition of Sri Lanka, however the first paragraph doesn't seem to provide background, instead pointing fingers. Rowan Harley (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It is extremely biased very far into the article. Using one view supported by mere articles expressing that view. Pushing a monetarist view proposed by the IMF. The paragraph quoting 'Bellwether' is ideological propaganda. Whoever added that section deliberately did it either to use it as vehicle to misrepresent Modern Monetary Theory, or doesn't have sufficient knowledge to recognize that the claims made are in ignorance. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also I added the counter to that paragraph. Whoever added the "citation needed' tag, check yourself. There is inline link to Modern Monetary Theory leading to an article where anyone can familiarise themselves with the actual foundations which are in contradistinction to those made in the preceding paragraph. This is significantly more than a pair of news articles making unsubstantiated claims based upon opinion. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda

Clearly there are people monitoring this article very desperate to maintain a propagandist approach and using this as a vehicle for spreading their incoherent economic ignorance. I don't expect much on Wikipedia, with all the amateurs and self-important novice editors flying around adding their little tags randomly. I tell you now though I will republish the facts on this article as much as you try to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.191.180 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR cannot be added and threats of disruptive edits or name-calling editors is not going to help that. -UtoD 05:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I've warned the IP on their talk page (User_talk:86.87.191.180#Warning). This WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct will not be tolerated. Use WP:DR, get consensus. Brute force and/or insults are not going to work. El_C 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I don't need warnings when I haven't committed any transgressions, no-one has been threatened and edits including factual material is not 'disruptive'. This is an open encyclopedia and striving for accurate information rather than lies propagated by ideologues. At least that is what I assumed from the description.

I added factual information which can easily be verified by following the inline link to an article that exists on this website. Since it exists it must therefore be an accepted article with accepted information.

I also find the push to 'create an account' whilst also stating 'you are free to edit anonymously' rather passive aggressive. I actually have an account and have had one for almost 20 years. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You have. Then and now: lies propagated by ideologues — too much. Blocked. El_C 19:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The 2019 Easter bombings has nothing to do with the current crisis. The situation has changed with COVID and exacerbated by the bad economic decisions and the camels back broke with Putin’s misadventures. Easter bombing, although a very terrible event in an otherwise peaceful country, is either ignorantly being used as an excuse, or an intentional mischief is being planted to cause a rift in the Lankan society against the vulnerable Muslim minority.

Amintman (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Debt trap argument

User continuously attempts to add content involving China forcefully to pages 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis and 2022 Sri Lankan protests by continuous reverting rather than address the issues in the content. While 3RR is largely avoided in a single page the user engages in more drawn out edit warring and battleground behaviour in both pages simultaneously by continuing to revert to add the same content. - UtoD. 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Even though there are reliable sources suggesting that it is a "China debt trap" [1][2][3][4], UtoD has labeled such content as misinformation and removed it. FobTown (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First you have added that "Hambantota port that ending up got leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid." to both pages which I clearly showed as misinformation in your talk page yet you continued to revert and try to forcefully keep the same content in. Also in the 2022 Protest page I made it clear you are exceeding the scope and giving undue weight for a single country. The debt is already shown, adding another entire para around the same size as the para on summary on debt issues as a whole, exclusively about China is a clear example of undue weight. That page is about protests, not an analysis of debt by specific countries and again the same issue of adding misinformation about the port lease. WP:ONUS on addressing the issues is on you. Claiming sources exist thus it must be added is not satisfactory. Your only action is to use reverts to force through rather that actually address any of the issues. -UtoD 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

From the Guardian: [5] “The president pointed out that it would be a great relief if debt payments could be rescheduled in view of the economic crisis following the pandemic,”. China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank. Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.

How the "China debt trap" led to the current economic crisis and protests, therefore a mention of China is warranted in the protest article (the debt owed to Japan hasn't generated as much discussion as the debt owed to China). [6]: The Hambantota project followed on from that – but it hasn’t ended well. In 2017, the port was leased to Beijing on a 99-year debt-for-equity swap, after Sri Lanka failed to pay off the loan. Critics say Mahinda caused Sri Lanka to fall into the “Chinese debt trap”.

I'm okay with keeping the existing Lowry Institute argument that it isn't a "China debt trap", but that is not the only view. Here is commentary that debunks the argument that it isn't a "China debt trap"[7]: Calculating the volume of loans provided by other foreign nations and sovereign bonds/private commercial loans vis-a-vis that from China is an oft quoted argument to dismiss the theory of debt-trap diplomacy; however, it does not dismiss China’s strategic-trap diplomacy. FobTown (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Again you are just trying justifying edit warring and forcefully pushing edits while ignoring any issues with the content. The only thing you are showing is how just because you have sources doesn't mean it should be added, for example all of your sources refer to the debt-to-equity swap which is the initial proposal which was not what was carried out. This is why I gave you the Chatham House report which clarify they CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. [1] So no it was not leased to because paying the Port's loan is hard but because there were other debt issues unrelated to the port. In fact they never stopped paying the loan for the port. There are many Sri Lankan sources on the issue for example according to Sunday Times Under the Concession Agreement for Hambantota port, CMPort agreed to buy 85 percent of the shares of Hambantota International Port Group Company Ltd (HIPG) for a consideration of about US$ 974 milion. HIPG then acquired 58% of the total issued share capital of a second company called Hambantota International Port Services Company Ltd (HIPS). [2] and here is the state-owned Daily News with the governor of the Sri Lankan Central Bank stating that the money from lease was used to shore up reserves as it was dealing with other debt obligations relating to sovereign bonds. Per WP:ONUS its is your burden to address these issues before adding them. While I mentioned it before you refused to and continue to avoid addressing these issues and instead continue to simply try to revert your way through. -UtoD 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

See the article Debt-trap diplomacy which includes arguments for and against. You are free to cite state-owned sources for your arguments, but I have reliable sources that meet the burden arguing that it is a debt trap.[8][9][10][11][12][13] FobTown (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Noticing the earlier discussion on "Blaming all on China?", there is are considerable sources backing that China's debt-trap policy is one of the causes for the economic crisis. The question remains who is responsible for this situation in the island nation. Among several other reasons, China's debt-trap policy deserves a part of the blame. The primary reason, by some analysts, is capitalism; however, that's anything but factual. For this pathetic condition, the socialist policies and their continuous hangover are to be blamed. [14] FobTown (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that for the side saying this is not China's debt trap diplomacy, all the arguments were earlier made by a now-banned account due to sockpuppetry, see their talk page at User talk:Oppo48 FobTown (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy-pasting the same thing and not addressing the issues is not going to help. Existence of sources not fulfil the WP:ONUS, as you have failed to address misinformation related to the Hambantota port lease including the claim that it was leased because the government of Sri Lanka could not pay its loans when the debt-to-equity agreement was just a proposal that was not implemented and the payment of the lease was used to shore up reserves and to pay maturing ISBs. Second your attempts of adding the same content including the misinformation to the Protest page to misappropriate the protests as about China when it is completely outside the scope of that article. You are supposed to only talk about it here not in the protests page. - -UtoD 15:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This article in particular refutes the commonly-used arguments that it isn't a China debt-trap.[15] But clearly there was a debt-for-an asset swap, and there was no hard bargaining. China did not restructure the debt nor assisted in this regard. Sri Lanka’s inability to pay the Chinese debt allowed the Chinese to lease the port. The 99-year lease agreement was in actuality an acquisition of the port and its surrounding facilities, rushed and signed on the weekend behind closed doors. The agreement is still not disclosed to the public, and China’s opaqueness have always been the case in Sri Lanka. Further, the lack of transparency was proven when the Sri Lankan foreign minister revealed, “There is a provision for a further 99-year extension of the lease”. FobTown (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You do know there is the CMPorts stock market discloser which makes no mention of this fantasy "debt-to-equity" agreement you speak off?. If you are going to preach to a Sri Lankan about Sri Lanka then at least get your information right. No debt-to-equity agreement was carried out, HIPG and HIPS was formed as a JV between CMPorts and SLPA with a majority ownership by CMPorts which then leased the Hambantota Port for 99 years. Chatham institute petty much says the same CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. This is our Central Bank on how the money from the leased is used The IMF money will only be given to us over a period of three years with each tranche at USD 160 million. We have already got two and we expect the third in June. But, from 2019 onwards, several international and domestic sovereign bonds are set to mature and this is a problem”, said Dr.Weerasinghe. “The additional Chinese money thus will help us manage our short term liabilities using non-debt creating inflows. It will also help the Central Bank manage its foreign reserves,” WP:LOTSOFSOURCES means nothing due to this, because CBSL Governor and CMPorts are not just opinions, arguments or viewpoints. If you aren't going to address them then don't add it at all, this is a issue in my country I will not allow misinformation to be added. - -UtoD 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously government sources and state media are only going to tell their side of the story, which also avoids blaming government actions. Plus WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says that the money from China exacerbated the problems. Regardless of you being Sri Lankan, that doesn't give you the right to suppress the other side of the story. An NPOV tag is the only way to go. FobTown (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What story? Now you are claiming some other nonsense. Where did I say the claim of debt-trap didnt exist? Stop trying to attribute claims to me when I never claimed them. You are creating strawman arguments and if you any such thing like this again I WILL report you for WP:STRAWMAN. I am asking you to address the misinformation related to Hambantota Port specifically you trying to forcefully push misinformation that it was a debt-to-equity exchange and because the Port's loans could not be repaid. The statement by the CBSL Governor is the plan for dealing with maturing ISBs in 2019 and they clearly state that Hambantota Port lease and a IMF program is being used to bolster the reserves for that purpose. UtoD 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are a lot of sources regarding it as a debt trap, despite the CBSL statement? Its worth examining in detail.[16][17][18] FobTown (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Avoid going around the issue. Thank you -UtoD 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

China and Japan both are owed 10% .. please not

source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/explained-10-things-about-sri-lankas-worst-economic-crisis/articleshow/91648850.cms Noobiepro2007 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• note Noobiepro2007 (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion copied from admin noticeboard

I was getting frustrated with User:UtoD because they considered the opposing viewpoint I was trying to add to be misinformation, even though that view is backed by ABC, Guardian, NYT, etc. Also note that Debt-trap_diplomacy#China looks at both viewpoints, but User:UtoD says that only one viewpoint is valid for the Sri Lanka articles based on the CBSL report. The Talk discussion is going nowhere as User:UtoD claimed the high ground with the WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE tags.

Suggest that I and User:UtoD stay off Sri Lanka articles for two weeks, while we get input from a third-party editor that wasn't previously involved. FobTown (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how being "frustrated" is an excuse to avoid seeking consensus and try to forcefully add content. You are literally refusing to seek any consensus and when you get frustrated that you can't get what you want by discussion you just revert to trying to force it through. I reiterate that I am very specific in pointing out the problems in your edits which I clarified again after you kept attributing claims to me I never made. Yet you kept on avoiding the issue and attributing WP:STRAWMAN claims to me. And yes WP:ONUS falls on the person that seeks to add the content, refusing to take it means you shouldn't add that content in the first place. And WP:UNDUE weight is a thing and must be considered before adding any content. I didn't even claim any misinformation about debt-trap you keep blabbering about and nowhere in my posts I even talked about the existence or non-existence of a debt trap. In fact I never mentioned the word "debt trap" in the economic crisis article's talk pages to even claim it is misinformation. I clearly claimed that one 1. Misinformation is about the port and undue weight is about the protest page which shouldn't have massive section on all about China. - UtoD 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other editors backing your viewpoint on the content? I would like to see once other uninvolved editors give their input. FobTown (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think that FobTown tends to edit in subject areas that are often full of editors pushing non-neutral point of view. There really needs to be more truly neutral editors involved in these controversial topics. Thriley (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I do edit in such controversial subject areas that are often full of editors pushing non-NPOV. As I and @UtoD: are supposed to stay away since a one-on-one Talk was unproductive, would you and @Qiushufang: like to be the uninvolved editors giving your third opinions? FobTown (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not confident either User:Thriley or I are uninvolved any longer. Thriley has since gone to the same page to revert in favor of Fobtown while I have reverted them pointing out their involvement via their comment here, which they seem to be willfully ignorant of in their edit summaries. To me it seems fairly obvious that Thriley is attempting to continue the edit war with disingenuous reasoning considering their comment here. Qiushufang (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate advice from editors with a history of countering POV editors seeking to remove information sourced from reliable publications. Thriley (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute section or argument. User:FobTown and User:UtoD were asked to resolve their issues in the talk page and given timed blocks. This did not happen. Their issue was not hashed out and both FobTown and UtoD went back to revert in spite of the block. Thriley has continued the same behavior with no input in the talk with apparently no input in the argument and I have reverted them with the same background. I suggest a hard ban on all users here from editing the article and content involved with a reversion to the previous stable version. Qiushufang (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley, thank you for judging the content on its merits including sourcing from reliable publications. @Qiushufang, would you mind doing the same too before taking further action? FobTown (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: I see that you again added the claim that "being leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid". I specifically stated that this part needs to be re-edited or removed because this is misinformation as CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. The central bank’s deputy governor reportedly stated, ‘from 2019 onwards, several international and domestic sovereign bonds are set to mature and this is a problem’. The deputy governor noted that ‘[t]he additional Chinese money […] will help us manage our short-term liabilities [and] help the Central Bank manage its foreign reserves’ (Imtiaz, 2017). Based on interviews with Sri Lankan policymakers, including the Central Bank governor and his predecessor, Sautman and Yan (2019b) conclude that the CMPort investment was ‘not used to repay port-related debt, but to pay off more expensive loans, generally to Western entities’. Moreover, the ‘loans obtained [from China] to construct [Hambantota] port were not written off and the government is still committed to loan repayments as per the original agreements’ (Moramudali, 2019) [[[CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. This is a misconception that has been corrected and clarified multiple times by reliable sources. And even those sources that support the debt-trap theory have clarified that Hambantota port was NOT leased for debt concessions. The China debt-trap narrative of Hambantota Port was primarily premised upon the idea that the concessional Agreement was a debt/equity arrangement, wherein a company’s debts are exchanged for stock or equity. However, according to new official statements, the Agreement was not a debt/equity swap arrangement where Sri Lanka leased the territory for ninety-nine years to China as a way to pay off its debt. In 2019, Sri Lankan officials declared that the loan agreements for the port owed by the Sri Lankan government to China were separate from the Concessional Agreement of the port. It was declared that the debt owed to China for the construction of the port was simply transferred out of the books of the Sri Lanka Port Authority and taken over by the Sri Lankan Treasury. Thank You-UtoD 03:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I instead propose an RfC to solve this issue if you do not agree to remove the misinformation involving the Hamabntota Port. -UtoD 03:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@UtoD: it seems like you are a POV editor seeking to remove information sourced from reliable publications (ABC, NYT, Guardian), so it is convenient of you to describe the opposing viewpoint as misinformation and then run to the admin noticeboard complaining of edit warring. Your behavior should be called into question. FobTown (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang:, @Thriley: would you two say you are involved in this discussion at this point or just following up on some noticeboard activity? If you are involved, id like to close the Third opinion request as having more than 2 participants. Otherwise, i guess i can try and absorb the conversation and render my opinion, although it might not happen until next week. Bonewah (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bonewah: I have not taken part in the discussion here or have any knowledge of the subject beyond what was written at the edit warring noticeboard where I noted Fob's longtime and consistent relationship with edit warring with multiple users. Thriley supports adding Fob's content on this article based on the usage of reliable newer sources, though their comment at the noticeboard and portrayal of Fob's behavior as merely editing on articles that are controversial doesn't leave me with much confidence. I'll leave the outcome to whatever consensus is reached by others. Qiushufang (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't just outright claim Sri Lanka is in a Chinese debt trap without proof. When plenty of reputed sources verify that China only made up a small portion (10 percent) of Sri Lanka's external debt. Quite similar to Japanese amount and additionally it is also wrong to go claim that the Hambantota Port was given to China after failing to pay the Chinese loans. That is not even what happened and seems other commenters have given strong sources that show why that wasn't the case. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your account was just created today so you will be under scrutiny. Read the following before you give your cookie-cutter arguments that are similar to those made by UtoD.

From the Guardian: [19] “The president pointed out that it would be a great relief if debt payments could be rescheduled in view of the economic crisis following the pandemic,”. China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank. Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.

How the "China debt trap" led to the current economic crisis and protests, therefore a mention of China is warranted in the protest article (the debt owed to Japan hasn't generated as much discussion as the debt owed to China). [20]: The Hambantota project followed on from that – but it hasn’t ended well. In 2017, the port was leased to Beijing on a 99-year debt-for-equity swap, after Sri Lanka failed to pay off the loan. Critics say Mahinda caused Sri Lanka to fall into the “Chinese debt trap”.

I'm okay with keeping the existing Lowry Institute argument that it isn't a "China debt trap", but that is not the only view. Here is commentary that debunks the argument that it isn't a "China debt trap"[21]: Calculating the volume of loans provided by other foreign nations and sovereign bonds/private commercial loans vis-a-vis that from China is an oft quoted argument to dismiss the theory of debt-trap diplomacy; however, it does not dismiss China’s strategic-trap diplomacy. FobTown (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The Core issue I had was more to do with this presumptous phrasing in the beginning. (presidential administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa for the debt crisis as he steered Sri Lanka in a Chinese "debt trap). It is firstly a loaded sentence that makes it seem like we All had a consensus that Chinese debt Trap is real. Despite this talk is ongoing and also many scholars from strong institutions have given good reasoning on why it's misinformation to make that claim. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source suggesting it is a debt trap, and that what is borrowed from China is almost one-sixth of Sri Lanka's total external debt: As Sri Lanka faces its worst economic crisis in decades and struggles to pay loans, China turns a blind eye after ensnaring the island nation into a debt trap...Total debt to China stands at USD 8 billion, almost one-sixth of Sri Lanka's total external debt of USD 45 billion, The HK Post reported. [22][23] FobTown (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Both of your sources are poor quality small sites and others are outdated. There are many reliable sources explaining why Sri Lanka is not in a Chinese debt trap. Yet your previous edit was pushing a unilateral pov that Sri Lanka is in a debt trap and even claiming that Sri Lanka gave up the port once they failed to pay off the Chinese debt paying for that port. Except we know that is not the real story. Other commenters have cited sources that show that Sri Lanka didn't default on their Chinese debts for that port. And that there was no debt-equity swap. You are ignoring those reliable sources and sticking to outdated one or small sites willfully, if you still think that port was a Chinese debt trap. Even Bloomberg updated their views and saying that a closer look into Debt trap diplomacy accusations on China, are just unfounded. [24]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In regards to this paragraph, Much of this was borrowed for large-scale infrastructure projects which turned out to be unprofitable and viewed as white elephants, such as the Hambantota port that ended up being leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid. Umm, Hambantota port wasn't given after failing to pay off Chinese loans. Source to prove that. [25] And it's not even a White elephant considering that recent Indian news show the port is faring well nowadays. [26] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The above paragraph is justified as there are sources stating that this constitutes debt-trap diplomacy: Beijing bailed out the port in 2017 by having a state-owned company, China Merchants Group, buy a 99-year lease for $1.1 billion. That includes land for an industrial park. The deal gave Sri Lanka cash to repay Chinese banks but prompted accusations official bungling gave a foreign government control over part of the country. Chinese loans also paid for an international airport near Hambantota. Few airlines use it. The crisis reignited accusations Beijing used a “debt trap” to gain influence over the country.[27]

Writing in Channel News Asia (CNA), R Ramakumar, a Professor of Economics at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, highlighted that China's "debt-trap" policy is singularly responsible for the dire economic situation of Sri Lanka. [28] FobTown (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't even have consensus to claim that it's a fact. And it appears more and more scholars are emerging to show why it's misleading disinformation. However, the case of the Hambantota lease remains ensconced by many myths that, only recently, media and academic literature have started to debunk. Three reasons show how the narrative of debt-trap diplomacy is inappropriate: the lack of a debt/equity arrangement, the Sri Lankan government’s solicitation of the loan, and the minimal amount of Sri Lankan debt owed to China.[29] Even if you exclude me out, I see two other commenters here already giving you decent sources that explain why Debt trap diplomacy is misinformation. You are only cherrypicking questionable single sources, whilst ignoring the ones I and others above, have provided, and treat them if they're invalid, and stubbornly pushing your own desired pov. You claim to go present both sides on the article yet you don't even go attribute correctly and present opinions as if they are already confirmed facts. Despite there are so many reliable sources explaining in detail why Sri Lanka and the port is not in a Chinese debt trap. Which at the minimum shows that fact doesn't have consensus among scholars. [30] [31]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You are the second same-day created account that immediately goes to edit this article, after User:Simpleshooter99. I don't want to delve into sockpuppetry accusations. FobTown (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Look here. I am not interested in your accusations though I don't know why Wikipedia had even logged me out. I didn't even log myself out so it's not my fault that it did it automatically. It's pointless to waste time to explain to you that I don't need to create a second account. Just to tell you that I only agree with you that both sides should be heard. Some people argue it's a debt Trap whereas others disagree with that term. So we should be impartial and include both sides' arguments in without claiming either opinion as a fact. I didn't remove your first paragraph claiming that critics believe it's a debt trap but it has to be attributed correctly. To not present their opinion as if it's an undisputed fact and I did the same with critics of Debt trap diplomacy too. So I think it's resolved.Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Also final reply here. If you want to include both sides' arguments then you need to do it fairly. And you seem to heavily Edit war with the other two commenters here. I don't think it's unreasonable to simply present two sides of the argument on the article like you already agreed to. Instead you constantly write - Various commentaries blamed the previous presidential administration of Mahinda Rajapaksa for the debt crisis as he steered Sri Lanka in a Chinese "debt trap. Here you are sneakily presenting debt trap as a fact instead of an opinion attributed to the critics. You cannot claim to present both sides fairly if you rule one side as facts but the other side as opinions. Though my sources gave sufficient reasoning why it is not a fact. [32] Even if you completely ignore me here, you still don't have consensus to claim Debt trap diplomacy is a fact when many top scholars and the two other commenters here, have shown why it's just false. And even Bloomberg corrected itself (eventually) so it's only a matter of time when every single mainstream media says it too. [33] So it is silly to continue to hold on to unfounded claims when many scholars are showing why it is wrong. But whatever, you and User:Qiushufang and User:UtoD can go continue your prolonged dispute here without me. I am done here. (Two Of you got notices for edit warring and don't want to join in on that) Simpleshooter99 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Recommend creating section or article

Added source from Lowy institute. Recommend creating a section or even article just for the debt trap diplomacy subject. Debt-trap diplomacy has been recommended to split or reduce content so this might be a good time to do it. Qiushufang (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Timeline update

Can someone update the timeline with more recent events such as the vents in June. If it is hard to update every event that happens, then I suggest deleting the timeline content Theeveralst (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus of debt Trap

@Fobtown despite what we discussed a month back, you keep pushing your pov and claiming that Hambantota Port lease was forced and to pay off Chinese loans for the port. [34] Except that's not true and confirmed by many top sources [35] including the Sri Lankan government itself. You keep relying on very poor low quality sources (Mostly indian tabloids) to back your flawed edit and ignoring the fact your information is now being contradicted by many top western sources like Deborah Brautigam [36], The Diplomat [37] , Chatham House [38] and even Sri Lanka's own government. [39] At the very least, stop claiming it as facts on Wikipedia article. At best it is an opinion and should be stated as such, and cannot be presented as hard facts on Wikipedia, given there is far too many western scholars pointing out that it is just wrongful disinformation. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Right here.

From the Guardian: [40] “The president pointed out that it would be a great relief if debt payments could be rescheduled in view of the economic crisis following the pandemic,”. China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank. Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.

How the "China debt trap" led to the current economic crisis and protests, therefore a mention of China is warranted in the protest article (the debt owed to Japan hasn't generated as much discussion as the debt owed to China). [41]: The Hambantota project followed on from that – but it hasn’t ended well. In 2017, the port was leased to Beijing on a 99-year debt-for-equity swap, after Sri Lanka failed to pay off the loan. Critics say Mahinda caused Sri Lanka to fall into the “Chinese debt trap”. FobTown (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, just because one Source says it. It doesn't mean that it overrides all Other sources. You keep doing this repeatedly. You loudly tell me to look at your source. But also completely ignore all the sources I gave as if they mean nothing. Understand at the minimum, that there is no scholarly consensus as many top scholars disagree with your source and hence at best, stop treating it as facts. Attribute it as an opinion or claim and make it clear on who says what. And present both sides, without stating that one side is correct and the other isn't. We already agreed to that before and yet you now keep claiming one sides is the facts and that the opposing side, isn't. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot agree to a simple (present both sides fairly and stop treating your side as if they are the undisputed facts), then I suggest a third opinion option since we already been through this extensively and too long. Have another to decide if Sri LankaN port is truly under Chinese debt Trap or not. Deal? Simpleshooter99 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fobtown Lastly if you are going to undo my edits. [42] Don't undo all my collective edits with the same sweeping reason. Many of my edits was simply to make it clearer on why critics opposes debt Trap diplomacy theory. Yet that seems not even allowed by you. Revert like that again and it may be viewed as edit warring and I will have to report if you constantly do that all the time. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Fob attempted to change the wording of criticism of the debt trap theory twice ([43], [44]) to make it appear less authoritative although the statement itself was not presented as such in the source nor was another countervailing source or opinion given. This is obvious minute WP:POV imo. Qiushufang (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The debt trap description was widely used by reputable news sources such as New York Times, ABC, Guardian, so is a worldwide view that can be considered to be authoritative. On the other hand the Sri Lanka government has always denied that it is a debt trap. Only if their opinions are widely accepted and quoted by the general news, then academics and think tanks such as Deborah Brautigam and Chatham House can be considered authoritative. FobTown (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a separate article that covers debt trap debate in detail, no need to have it here. FobTown (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I find your argumentation very obviously disingenuous now. The NYT and other news outlets are not any more authoritative than the other sources provided. There is nothing in WP policy about the level of authoritativeness based on their usage in general news nor did I imply they were more authoritative, only that you were trying to make them seem less authoritative. The material provided from the main article was added to provide a clearer and more detailed view of the subject, which has been part of an edit war between you and other users since June. If there is already a main article, then neither the material contributed by you or others are necessary, merely a link and description of an existing debate given the already contentiousness of the content proven by the constant edit warring. Your behavior in mass reversion of others' changes while copy pasting the same argument in different parts of talk also does not speak well of yourself. If you consist in edit warring and non-comment on Simple's offer to have this issue solved via third party opinion and arbitration, then you will be reported again. Qiushufang (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fobtown the issue has always been that you keep bulldozing your pov over others and only presenting your preferred view as the only correct view. Even your talk page is filled with partisan arguments with many others on this topic. It's very obvious others cannot discuss this with you constructively so I suggest we go through dispute resolution channels to decide it. I suggested third opinion and yet to hear if you agree. If you're now arguing that my sources like Chatham House [45] are unreliable. There's also a noticeboard to decide on that and suggest we stop arguing and let others rule what is best, and respect the consensus. But currently you don't have consensus here to push your opinion that these reputable scholars are not to be taken seriously just because you don't like what they say. [46] [47] You're obviously straining hard for excuses to reject sources because they write what you dislike..Simpleshooter99 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This is to keep debt trap as a paragraph within External Debt, rather than have debt trap expand in length so much that it gets its own section which is duplicated in the Debt Trap article. I'll be willing to keep that shorter version as per User:Qiushufang [48] FobTown (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Fob, you are merely reverting the version you prefer once again. There is no consensus here on that reversion and you did not consult either me, Simple, or anyone else on the reversion. Both Simple and I were content with the version that I had edited. My suggestion was to section off the content in addition to linking the main article or creating a new article to prevent the edit war which you and others were engaged in with fuller and more complete information for that section. I do not understand why you are linking to my reversion in which I specifically stated one of the problems with your edit, which you have not addressed in your current reversion as well. There is no countervailing view on the matter that "Hambantota port project was proposed by the Sri Lankan president rather than Beijing" or any suggestion for that to be the case as far as the source is concerned. The diminution of the content's authority without any source or reason beyond its supposed lesser authority compared to global news outlets, as you claimed, was part of broader problem of your edit warring. What you are doing is again, long term drawn out edit warring. Picking on one argument as an excuse to revert while ignoring the other. Qiushufang (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fobtown You didn't even discuss it. Just went straight to reverting. You're predictably doing it over again after waiting for a while and hoping that nobody notices, and just bulldozing your own version again without even discussing it or going through the dispute resolution (reliable sources and Third opinion) channels as I already told you about. The only issue here is that you're constantly adding weasel words and claiming it as a fact that China has put Sri Lanka in a debt trap and constantly edit warring to unfairly make the opposing side that debunked it, seem less authoritative. After which I gave up after repeatedly trying to meet you halfway. [49] You are unwilling to just attribute that debt Trap diplomacy is merely a theory believed by others. And again, I tell you too many prominent western scholars have debunked it. So you cannot continue to present it as a fact but only at best as a claim pushed by your side. Honestly it shouldn't even be on this article considering too many sources contradict it and state it as wrongful to go claim that Sri Lankan debt crisis is due to being overwhelmed by too many Chinese debt, when the objective facts show how absurd that is. "for Sri Lanka’s debt, 9.8% is held by the Chinese. That’s not a typo: less than 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt is held by China. The rest is held by Japan, the Asian Development Bank and private lenders. How is Sri Lanka’s gross mishandling of its own economy somehow China’s fault, when it holds less of Sri Lanka’s debt than Japan does?" [50]Simpleshooter99 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

My issue is not whether the sources are reliable or not, whether in favor of "debt trap" or "not debt trap". My issue is that you two made debt trap section so huge, when it previously was a paragraph under External Debt, making it a lot bigger than the other causes of Sri Lanka's economic crisis. This was previously the agreed-upon length for debt trap when it was under External Debt.[51] FobTown (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither I or Simple agreed on the length or format of the content. The article does not belong to you alone, this is WP:OWN, nor is there a policy dictating whether or not content need belong in a certain section. As I had suggested and implemented, debt trap should have been sectioned off or given its own article for Sri Lanka while the content in this article merely refer to it and the main article. The purpose was, again, because your edit warring with other users on the specifics of the content while ignoring the vast majority of the material in the main article. The main article also recommended splitting content. You did not respond to this in talk until it had been implemented. As Simple noted here, the longer version is more detailed and provides better attribution, one of the primary problems which caused the edit war in the first place. The version you linked to as the "agreed-upon length" is also not the version you reverted to today, but the one in which you had already changed the article. Qiushufang (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You're predictably doing it over again after waiting for a while and hoping that nobody notices. This and other repeated behavior have been pointed out by several other users already: [52], [53], [54], [55]. As CurryCity pointed out, somehow Fob is using his version as the base version once again even though it has been reverted by multiple users. I find it hard to believe we are all in the wrong while Fob is somehow the sole paragon of virtue here. Qiushufang (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You now changed your argument. You had argued that the sources debunking the theory, were not reliable or authoritive enough to be taken seriously. Do you mean to trim them off? And you kept on diminishing the information that shows there is no debt Trap. While at the same time rewording and reverting on allegations as if they're the undisputed facts. [56] That's why it was important to show both sides of the argument when you constantly go push debt Trap as a hard fact and not as a mere allegation. If you're going to include the allegations of debt Trap. It's important to also mention the scholars that disputes it. And if you want to keep it short. Merely mentioning that China only holds less than Ten percent (far from majority) and there are "allegations" of debt Trap diplomacy which is disputed with a link to the (#sri Lanka section in debt Trap diplomacy page) Can make it shorter. [57] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sectioned off

I have sectioned off the debt trap material due to constant edit warring over its content as well as ballooning in size. It should probably be given its own article as well with more supporting material from Debt-trap_diplomacy#Sri_Lanka. Qiushufang (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to keep going in circles there. Fobtown and I both have provided sources that support our argument stance so I gave a compromise and told him to simply attribute who said what, and yet he ignored it. And only wants to push his pov as being a fact that Hambantota Port lease is a Chinese debt Trap and forced, and to pay off Chinese debts, despite many of my sources contradicting that. Obviously he is unwilling to accept that many sources contradict his claims and tried to reword it in a twisted way that is not at all appropriate. Hence why I suggested to him go settle this once and for all, via dispute resolution of third opinion. [58] Ideally someone who is not part of this discussion at all, and is politically impartial and has a decent rep on Wikipedia. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The debt trap description was widely used by reputable news sources such as New York Times, ABC, Guardian, so is a worldwide view that can be considered to be authoritative. On the other hand the Sri Lanka government has always denied that it is a debt trap. Only if their opinions are widely accepted and quoted by the general news, then academics and think tanks such as Deborah Brautigam and Chatham House can be considered authoritative. FobTown (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it was at first when media could only depend on one indian scholar and there was nobody else to give facts. So intially Media constantly quoting one source, kept a myth alive. [59] Later on actual research think tanks and scholars began to professionally look into it and 100 percent of all their conclusions is that there was no debt Trap and it was grossly misrepresented. The sheer number of recent professional sources all reaching the same conclusions, is extremely authoritative. [60] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Lastly using your own created logic, the scholars (rejecting debt trap as a myth) is also published in media like the Sydney Morning Herald, Nikkei Asia, the Atlantic, Bloomberg News [61], New York Times [62], etc. They are featured in big papers too so you have to admit that they are acceptable. In fact you are the only one here implying alone that Chatham House and Deborah Brautigam are not quality sources despite that is just absurd since they are both world class renown academics. And they are also being published in corporate media too. It's just your single opinion to claim that firms like British think tank Chatham House [63], Lowly Institute and many others are all unreliable sources to not be taken seriously, just because you said so. If you cannot constructively agree to consensus or a dispute resolution, and mass revert or edit war again without forming consensus, I will report you. [64][65] [66] [67] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion help in Pakistan economic crisis article

Already article 2022–2023 Pakistan economic crisis is not in good updated condition, moreover recently WP has been censored in Pakistan. The article seem to need article expansion help to keep adequately updated.

~~~~ Bookku (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

familiar?

Qiushufang, does any of these edits (Adrek96)(Oliviacave)(ElsieCubenet)(Smarandakarlos) look familiar (archive)(FobTown)? Maybe there are other editors who know more about this area. I checked some other articles mentioned above. There is a whole squadron of similar accounts so far, some are very recent. Could this be the same or a different person? CurryCity (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Debt-trap diplomacy

(KirklandWayne) (AriaNowen) (GeronimoZitto) (RoverTalpha9)

2022–2023 Pakistani economic crisis

(Rozax567) (HalimahhEmiriti) (Drankeyyy) (CountyOne1) (Sunami98798) (DomT90) (Christ23rw) (Malvishcrane) (Swiftnedfar) (Miqbhai)

I don't have the time to check right now, but two accounts created on the same day to edit the same article certainly seems suspicious. Qiushufang (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I too noted that Oliviacave (talk · contribs) and ElsieCubenet (talk · contribs) could be related. I think you should file an SPI. Chanaka L (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryCity: Add the following accounts as well.

• Lateefpedia (talk · contribs)
• Svein D Jacobsen (talk · contribs)
• Ranjeet Kumar99 (talk · contribs)

I suspect these accounts might relate to Vittoria Alessandrini (talk · contribs). Chanaka L (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryCity@Qiushufang I edited that article briefly because I had read a recent article stating the real cause of Sri Lanka's debt crisis. And wanted to add that fact in with good faith. However had also noticed multiple disruptive accounts that are promoting India + blaming China with a slight ignorant tale. There's a certain irony where I don't even like their edits and hate the fact that you would compare them with me. Truthfully, they are very different to me and it would make me happy to see them go away. Yet none of you even filed a SPI after all these days. KirklandWayne (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

And just wanted to say it's really insulting that you think this guy[68] is me. We have opposite views on debt trap diplomacy. That guy is so very wrong on his edit description. Unlike him, I don't think China wants to use debts to steal others' assets. So don't group him with me and get me banned because you misunderstood, and didn't really check beforehand. KirklandWayne (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

My apology for any mistakes. There were many to go through mixed in with other new accounts. CurryCity (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)