Talk:List of designated terrorist groups

Section header inserted here, July 2008

Archive 1 from 2001 to June 2002: Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Archive 1 (archive 1 contains discussions from when the article was at the title "Terrorist groups"

Archive 2 from January 2004 to September 2006: Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Archive 2 (archive 2 included specific discussions on the Jewish Defense League, Hindu organisations, Operation Rescue, the PLO, JKLF, Stern Gang, ANC, ALF, EZLN and EOKA. Please refer to these archived discussions when making edits to these sections.)

Sorry to just but in but could some one please put the christian terrorist groups back into the page, no religion should be exempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.72.135 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly! Draconius14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Irish Nationalists/Ulster Loyalists

Why does it say they are in "Ireland"? All of these groups are only from Northern Ireland and their goals concern only Northern Ireland, though they may sometimes operate in the Republic. I remember it used to say that they were from Northern Ireland, but somebody changed it without asking. Let us change it back to reflect the info more accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.101 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Geographically, they are in Ireland. It's an island to the west of Britain off the coast of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.129 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could this be valid from the viewpoint that these terrorists seek eventual reunification of Ireland as a geographic whole and the abolishment of Northern Ireland as a nation-territory under Britain? At least some did. Thus this "regional" terrorism is a little unusual in that it operates almost exclusively outside the nation they ultimately support. Plus membership was once ascribed as coming as much cross border as from within Northern Ireland. Don't know if the IRA ever disclosed their full membership to prove or disprove that. I would suspect that the actives were mostly Northern and any Ireland were mostly support like those in the USA just because of the border. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

United States of America Government

The United States of America may have gotten into a few wars that were pointless, but most of the wars were for good. World War Two wasn't a terror operation. The First Gulf War wasn't either. The Civil War wasn't about terrorizing people. This is a very broad and vague definition, and is unintelligent.Draconius14 (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The US government has killed more civilians since its establishment than any other government in the history of mankind, including the destabilisation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, and recently providing material support for bombings inside several cities inside Iraq. The US is founded upon genocide of the Native American Indians, Barbary Wars, war with Hawaii, Samoia, Moro, Philipines, Mexico. Deaths in Iraq/Iran directly attributable to the US sponsorship of Saddam Hussein's Iraq government resulted in the death of >1 million, deaths in Iraq since the 1993 invasion are about another 1 million. Vietnam (4 million), Laos and Cambodia bombing (2 million), Korea (3.5 million),

About 5,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, about 4,500 were killed during the US invasion of Panama,then there's Dominica, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, the list is fairly endless. Take any South American country that has murdered more than 100,000 if its civilians in the last 50 years, and you can be sure it had a US-supported and financed government while it was killing. Any good example of the anti-democratic nature of the US, is its imprisonment of more than 1 million of its own civilians (for being poor and wanting more, Oliver).

"No major advanced industrial nation has suffered less or profited more from its terroristic wars than the United States."

JSPyper is right. By your definition, the U.K. France, Sweden, and Germany are a terror organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconius14 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right forum for people to forward their ideologic claims concerning a quite unconnected topic. Please be so kind and move it elsewhere. --195.113.65.4 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

^This entry uses an extremely vague definition of the word Terrorist, under this definition any government that has EVER gone to war could be considered a terrorist group.JSPyper 10:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the right forum for this topic because the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" has turned the US government into the largest terrorist organizition in the world.

http://libertarianempire.com/Drugs.html

This entry is an example of why colleges do not accept Wikipedia for scholarly research. It is factually inaccurate (see Soviet Union purges for governments killing people, or perhaps Nazi Germany if you want to count wars), is sophomoric (War on Drugs? terrorism? I think that's a bit backward. See: Narco-terrorism for the correct entry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Mason (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

True. However Wikipedia is intended for general topic education, not topic specialties work. Plus you academics only point to the cream of your work, the top 1%. The truth is that "bent" statistics, broken facts, ill composed experimental design and data and illogical conclusions litter the average modern academic paper. Only flagrant lies get flagged in the press of today's academic rush and not then if they lead to PC results. Look to your self-produced critics if you don't believe. Thus Wikipedia at least equals your standards simply by providing this forum for dispute. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This might be the most biased posting I have ever read. Not to mention the fact that it is factually incorrect. 1. The fight against the Barbary States was to put an end to their piracy. Under the control of their corsair rulers the Barbary states plundered shipping in the Mediterranean. They captured crew men and either enslaved them for labor or ransomed them back to their country of origin. During America's early years, the Barbary Pirates as they would become known began attacking civilian US ships. Demanding that the US pay a tribute for the right to use Mediterranean waters. Encouraged by England and France (whose trade was hurt by the new US)they attacked several US ships, ransoming off their crew. George Washington and John Adams spent their time in office appeasing these 'terrorists,' and as a result of perceived American weakness, the Barbary Pirates continued to increase the cost of the tribute. By the time Thomas Jefferson became President, the Untied States was paying 1/5 of its entire annual income (about $2,000,000) as tribute to the pirates. As a result, the United States went to war with the Barbary States. Now how exactly does that conflict prove the United States is a terrorist regime?

2. Didn't Mexico only come into existence after the Spanish conquered Central America and what is now Mexico? In fact, didn't the Spanish engage in the genocide of whole populations of native peoples to found their country? I would also love to see an actual number proving that US has killed more people than any nation in history. You are aware that both Hitler and Stalin killed millions in world war II, right? Moreover, every current nation in the world was established because of the destruction of an older nation. That's is how every nation arrived at their current Borders. Does the conquest of the Romans, Chinese, the Hun, etc. factor into your model? or are they too old? Exactly how many years are we allowed to go back when blaiming whole societies for injustices that a large part of them took no part in at all? For example, the current living generations in America where not involved in over half of the incidents you provide (they weren't even born). Is is fair to blame me for what happened 150 years ago? What about 500 years ago? 1000? For example, should all jewish people be called terrorists because of the Siccari and the zealots thousands of years ago? Should I be called a slave master for what Thomas Jefferson did 250 years ago, simply because I am an American? This posting is full of rheotic and ideology, but it is severely lacking in fact.

3. All deaths in the Iran/Iraq war cannot be attributed to the United States. This writer completely forgets that the reason the US supported Iraq was because the Soviet Union supported Iran. Moreover, the reason the US gave Iraq chemical weapon capability was because of our fears that the Soviet Union was doing the same thing. Remember the doctrine of MAD - we knew the Iranians wouldn't use chemical weapons if they thought Saddam would use them in return. So, nice try, but the deaths fall on the hands of the Soviet Union just as much as they do on the US. The author conveniently ignores this fact. Our conlficts in Asia would fall under this banner as well. Especially Vietnam and Korea.

4. Desert Storm was brought on by Saddam, not the US. He invaded another country and whatever you think of our motivations for coming to aid of Kuwait - the U.S. was clearly not in the wrong in this conflict. This was also a key in both the Korean war and Vietnam war. Communist forces were attempting to invade their democratic neighbors.....we attmepted to prevent this. Again, nice spin, but the author is missing a great deal of context. Being involved in a war does not make you a terrorist. There are very real reasons to go to war. Defending a nation from a dangerous aggressor is probably one of the best.

5. Afghanistan was shouldn't even be listed. We helped the Afghans defend their country from Soviet Aggression and then completely left them alone. The taliban quickly took control and oppressed the local people and provided a safe haven for Osama Bin Laden and his cronies. The US was given complete international authority to invade Afghanistan and route out the terrorists because Afghanistan was incapable of doing it itself. This is clearly not terrorism.

6. In Kosovo and Bosnia the U.S. was acting along with the UN to stop mass killing and genocide. Again, the U.S. was hardly the terrorist in this instance.

7. Iran has kidnapped, tortured, and killed U.S. citizens and has been the most important supporter of international terrorism in the last 100 years. Sure the regime was brutal under the Shah, but it has hardly gotten any better since. Even your analysis of South America is fairly skewed.

8. It is really 2,000,000 people who are incarcerated in America and I agree it is too high - but you can hardly argue that all of them are only there "for being poor and wanting more." What about murders, child molestors, rapists, etc???? Furthermore, if you are attempting to argue that terrorists are also comprised of poor, oppressed people, then think again.......the vast majority of terrorists are middle class and well educated. In fact, low employment rates have a much better corelation with terrorism than poverty or oppression.63.127.202.141 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Central Intel. Agency (CIA)

Since when has the Central Intellegence Agency been a terrosit organization - that's right - since it was set up. The example of the bombing of Hiroshima as a terrorist action is completly biased, mainly due to they were a part of an ongoing general war, between the united states and japan. A counter argument to that woud be why are the insurgents of the Iraq war considered terrorists? Because they fight for no country, are no military force, wear no insignia, uniform, etc. O ya also I know that the USA and EU classify the Jewish Defense League as a terrorist organization, however based on public opinion of the group as a "protection" group should we, have the power of wikipedia, classify this group as a terrorist organization?

Have removed CIA as it fails the criteria of being a non-state actor. Ttiotsw 21:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when was being a non-state actor a requirement for terrorism?

The DEA is also a terrorist.

http://libertarianempire.com/DEA.html

Hindu Section Mediation

This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case about the Hindu section.

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Yukon guy Sm ashiq AndrewRT User:Hkelkar Basawala

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 10:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

VHP is considered an offshoot of RSS on the article Vishva Hindu Parishad. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And so is Bajrang Dal, as a youth wing, on its own article. If those information are incorrect, then change the section, but since its the exact wording on the articles for vhp and bd. If the info's wrong, then change in on those pages first. Is this what the added missing citations were about? Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the concern is the references do not indicate the organisations are considered terrorists by a governmental authority. In this context, they would have to be removed from this article. Addhoc 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the context and will not oppose the removal. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise you had come to a decision. So is it safe to remove VHP and Bajrang Dal as well? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nobleeagle, yes I think so, there appears to be a consensus they should be removed. Addhoc 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

French Resistance

What about the French Resistance and other Resistance organizations? --Error 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They have been described as terrorist orginizations by more than one source and their methods match those of some of the other organizations on the list. There seems no reasonable reason to exclude them 81.153.253.32 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Elmo

See the definition of groups included in this list

Therefore, this list is of organisations that are, or have been in the past, proscribed as "terrorist organizations" by other organizations, including the United Nations and national governments, where the proscription has a significant impact on the group's activities.

Thats why. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Weren't the resistances considered terrorist by the pro-Nazi governments? --Error 05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, are there references that comply with the criteria quoted by Snowolfd4... Addhoc 12:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that their main targets were those Frenchmen they considered collaborators? I think review will show they seldom targeted the German army in combat or in mass. In fact I seem to remember several documentaries were it was remarked how quickly they stopped ambushing individual Germans and small patrols when the Nazis responded by killing 10 French for every German killed. I think this goes to whether terrorism includes only seeking to inspire terror in a general population or also seeking to terrorize only a very select group. I am sort of thinking targeting only specific people opposed to your cause is not terrorism. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lords Resistance Army

Whatabout the LRA? Their stated goal is to establish a theocratic state in Uganda governed by the ten commandments, also nobody would dispute the fact that the LRA has committed gruesome acts of terror against civillians. They are also sponsored by a nation well known to support terrorism, ie. Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most Christians wouldn't consider them a "Christian" organization, but than again most Muslims do not consider Al Qaeda to be a truely "Islamic" organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't designated. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

terrorism is a tactic

terrorism is a military tactic it is way for small poorly armed groups to hit goverments or society it is often cruel dirty underhand and ruthless but you could say the same about dropping a bomb from a plane and some of the groups were created as a response to being treated badly like the pkk or tamil groups Bouse23 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Too true. On the other hand there is no really effective way to oppose terrorists -- except for strangers to mobilize their friends and relatives against them. This means that society can be fragmented and assaulted by as many small groups as care to become ruthless. That is small groups with rare ideas can become the tyrants over larger numbers. If terrorists are truly smart and effective the only logical response is capitulation. Thus effective terrorism is just another word for coupe.

Plus some these groups were "treated badly" because of prior actions. In some areas of the world all sides have been ruthless for a very long time and the only change is who in charge today and technology.

What the world needs is a gladiatorial arena and some islands as prizes. Oh and the prophet able to make them holy.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

Definately need to be added to the list, still recognised as a terrorist organisation by the USA State Department, The EU and Iran. Only problem is they don't really fight into into any of the current lists. They mix islam, marxism and nationalism all together so they don't gel comfortably the islamist list, the communist list or the nationalist list. I considered adding a whole new section for 'other' middle-eastern terrorist groups but wasn't sure, any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.43.66 (talk • contribs)

Agree they should be added AndrewRT - Talk 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From the article People's Mujahedin of Iran I've added them to other nationalists as that seems closest AndrewRT - Talk 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since PMI is funded by the US government, I have also added the US government to the list CartJLindsey 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you really consider a group that fights for a Islamic state nationalists? Wouldn't that make them religious terrorists? These groups would oppose a nation that espoused non-Islamic ideals. So isn't their true afinity to Islam and not a specific state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.127.202.141 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Differentiating historical from contemporary terrorists

Is it a good idea to differentiate between historical terrorists from contemporary. This is expecially true with say new countries like the US or say Israel where say they were (in both cases against the British) fighting colonial powers. Maybe a fork needed for List of historical terrorist organisations ?

For the moment as you'll see with the Jewish entries I have highlighted the Historical i.e. pre-Israel groups who fought the British and Contemporary groups i.e. groups in existance today. Ttiotsw 10:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Managing ambiguity of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation

This is an ambiguous entry but simply because of the future wishes of some countries in the EU with respect to any peace process in the Middle East. Some IP based user removed it and I reverted that and added it back because even though the EU doesn't specifically list it as terrorist group the sentiment by individuals in the EU is that it is. So though superficially from a EU perspective there is a desire to not have it listed, in a practical sense, it satisfies the definition as far as this list is concerned. Please don't remove it without adding talk here. Ttiotsw 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Winners are never terrorists. He who rights history etc. Try moving them to historical Terrorists with the note that they have successful moved to accepted political power. Just like Israel and the Continental American Army. They primarily employ conventional arms now and any IED can be said to be contracting out to third party irregulars -- like the US and Mujadhadeen. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Kahane Chai from Terrorist Organizations

Kahane Chai does not condone Terrorism. Kahane Chai defends themselves from Islamic Terrorist threats such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and does not meet the criteria for the definition of a Terrorist Organization. Although members have committed terroristic acts, the group as a whole does not support the actions, and should not be held responsible for individuals. Kahane Chai even attempts to dissuade members from committing violent crimes against the innocent, which the Torah forbids. They are traditionalists, and the use of terrorism would make them hypocrites. The Torah, however states the Jews may act in defense, which Kahane Chai does. There has been no proof, that the group as a whole has committed any terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

One thing though is I'd like to thank you for using the talk page ! and this makes me sympathetic but I do feel that your interpretation of the Torah is simply original research WP:OR as it presents a claim which only you and no one else notable has stated to be true with respect to Kahane Chai. This is part of my problem with historical verses contempory terrorism (people can change their stance). I would prefer to keep them listed as Kahane Chai is/was clearly listed in the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION LIST and is refered to in the document ( http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf ) as follows, "KAHANE CHAI * Israel, West Bank Seeks to continue Kach founder’s rejectionist agenda, considered Jewish extremist more militant than Kach party from which it sprang" (page 50) The star against them is that they have a presence in the US. If they have clearly renounced plus are clear of any US DoS or UN or EU references then they can be moved to the historical entries. It's unclear if they have done this. Ttiotsw 07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and cannot see how a group of Jewish traditionalists could possibly disobey the laws of God, especially considering their goal is to establish a Jewish State governed by Jewish Law. I, too have not seen conclusive evidence that Kahane Chai is a Terrorist Organization. They have no proven history of violence. Intrafects 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the State of Israel, The United States of America and the EU have got it all wrong.DuncanHill 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again to the god believing jewish person, the catagory for entry to the list is not if they follow the laws of god but what the wikipedia page deems valid for entry. Following the so-called laws of god (and you have provided no proof of this from a verifiable source) doesn't detract from established state definitions of terrorism. If we have a violent non-state actor and an established state has deemed them worthy of inclusion on a list of "terrorists" then the group goes in and you can't remove it unless you can show evidence to the contary. I'm removing the tag as it's a waste of time you tagging the article when just one group has such an asymetrical balance of evidence in favour of inclusion. Ttiotsw 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Torah is more than a verifiable source, and it appears that you need to read it.

No - the Torah is at best a primary source and it is usually not good to use primary sources to justify a point of view as that is original research and not verifiable. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Sources. We use secondary sources on Kahane Chai and given the few thousand years difference between the publication of the Torah and the existance of the Kahane Chai it is anachronistic to apply one to the other. Ttiotsw 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument about primary sources is just hiring an opinion. It is not scientific in that is doesn't involve a verifiable survey. At best it is hearsay opinion about who you think is recognized by more degreed experts as chief authority. Only availability should limit use of primary sources. That is primary sources in restricted rare book section constitutes research; those easily available for verification do not. And is it really a primary source in its umpteenth reprint or is that now secondary? Plus secondary sources can be just as easily misused as primary sources. Arguing otherwise is just academic elitists trying to reserve their place in the world. But your point about drawing conclusions beyond the quoted material is more valid though it makes condensing material for Wikipedia difficult to impractical in many cases. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Kahane Chai be placed under vigilante groups - not terrorist. Their objectives and methods are more limited in scope, if just as unjust and reprehensible at times. Actually the French Resistance and KKK properly belong in this category as well. One chief characteristic being that their focus is maintaining the status quo or prior acknowledged rules of society. The US government often being more about propaganda and general warning off travellers than accuracy.69.23.124.142 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it is a terrorist orgainization is besides the point. This page lists "designated" terrorist organizations, and Kahane Chai has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, Canada, the European Union and the United States. One major problem I see with this page is that it is vague and overbroad because it does not account for differences in the ways such organizations might be designated by different nation states (or non-national organizations like the EU or UN for that matter). Until that major issue is adequately resolved, the page should at least reflect the reality that Kahane Chai has been designated as a terrorist organizations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling correction in content 9.6 on Black Muslims: "merdered" to "murdered"

SkatRadioh 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good catch. Done. :) Luna Santin 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Babel

Please add an other language version link ja:テロリスト一覧. Naka64 03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Isn't it POV to have ANY group listed on this page? The distinction of terrorist ultimately relies on a political distinction and moral judgment! Doesn't it? 206.124.94.22 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The redirect Terrorist organization needs to be distinct from the List of terrorist organisations, as many of the examples cloud the definition, esp. as "Religious Terrorists" is the first section in the list of terrorist organisations. John Vandenberg 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is massive POV connoted by the title - it suggests that all the groups listed in the article are terrorist organizations - this is extreme prejudice and is an ongoing systematic bias notably found in many articles about groups opposing the U.S. The article should be renamed to something like "List of groups refered to as terrorist organizations" - this was done for example in the case of the "List of groups referred to as cults" article to remove any prejudice. Sfacets 05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

...but all the groups listed in the article are terrorist organizations. Which ones do you not think should be included ?. With cults the problem is that it is usually "former cults" that are classifying the others as cults e.g. the Catholic Church 2000 years ago was quite simply a "cult". There is no clear authority as to what is a cult. With Terrorist organisations the criteria for inclusion is that a governmental agency must have deemed the group a terrorist organisation. Thus all the entries are terrorist organisations. If you know of entries that are not then please remove them.

Ttiotsw 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of a terrorist organisation may not be another person's definition - also different governments/individuals call different groups terrorist. Labeling a group as a terrorist organisation is simply POV. Sfacets 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a definition; I use the article criteria i.e. they have to be proscribed as "terrorist organizations" by other organizations, including the United Nations and national governments, where the proscription (had or) has a significant impact on the group's activities. Thus if an individual calls something a that's just their opinion. I do not see this article as POV. It just needs the usual trimming now and then to remove people's current bugbears. Which entry is an example of what you are thinking of ? Ttiotsw 07:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the title of the article - not to any entry - the title connotes that every organization listed here is unanimously labeled as being a terrorist organization, when if fact the definition of what contritutes a terrorist organization varies. To insure neutrality, the article would need to be renamed. Sfacets 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no further objections I will start moving the article... Sfacets 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual error

article says "Lord's Resistance Army Christian/Pagan/Muslim"

this group specifically does not have ANY muslim members, and is known in Uganda as the Lord's Christian Army. They seek to put the 10 commandment as their national law, I doubt any muslim would be in their group. I contacted Robery Pelton who has interviewed members of their group, and he says they aren't muslim but a Christian terrorist group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.244.184 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Forget the "facts" on this group, I don't think any form of reality applies !. A few months ago I initially didn't like the use of "pagan" as I didn't think that traditional African tribal faiths would be this destructive to society (the finger in the air being that since I feel that Africa is where humans have originated from any term that uses pagan has to go back to the very first humans and that's a lot of ground to cover) but when searching I find that this mad bunch have combined bits of Christian, Pagan and Muslim cultural references. Probably one of the nastiest forms of religious Syncretism; not the first and probably won't be the last. They are not specifically Christian, not pagan and not Muslim but all three faith systems have influenced them. See the article Joseph_Kony for the reference to mixing in Muslim stuff. Ttiotsw 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Central Intel. Agency

Since when has the Central Intellegence Agency been a terrosit organization. The example of the bombing of Hiroshima as a terrorist action is completly biased, mainly due to they were a part of an ongoing general war, between the united states and japan. A counter argument to that woud be why are the insurgents of the Iraq war considered terrorists? Because they fight for no country, are no military force, wear no insignia, uniform, etc, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexBenshoff (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

New Tribes Mission ?

I am surprised because New Tribes Mission is not in the list. It have destroyed atleast 10 cultures and committed atleast a dozen acts of genocide. Axxn 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Superficially reading even their Wikipedia article i.e. New Tribes Mission probably some dirt to dig up but to make it stick you have to find a neutral (and reliable) source that calls them terrorists. Quickly looking at some google searches and their article it's not clear that this is true. I certainly do not agree with them (or any missionaries for that matter !) but "terrorists" would be bit of a biased label. ps: I have retitled this section. Ttiotsw 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kale Borroka

I don't think that "Kale Borroka" should be considered as a terrorist organization. In fact, it's just a spontaneous street disturbance phenomenon in the Basque Country, magnified by the spanish media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorka alustiza (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Yup its not an organisation so shifted it as a sentence with "See also" in the same line as ETA. I used the google translated page [1] to come to the conslusion that it was related to ETA (according to the Spanish Ministerio Del Interior). Ttiotsw 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency

The CIA is in service to protect the people of the United States. While some acts may be questionable to certain individuals their goal is not to strike fear into people. "Terrorists" strike fear into people. Terrorists put forth their idealogy, their morals, and their ideas through violence. Putting the CIA on a list of "Terrorist Organizations" is not acceptable. The CIA should be taken off the list A.S.A.P.

Kman2006 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Kman2006 2/4/07

Have removed CIA as it fails the criteria of being a non-state actor not because of your reasoning though. In future it's easier to look at the criteria for inclusion. Ttiotsw 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly fails that criterion, but it has in fact used the words "shock and awe" to describe the military actions in Iraq, which clearly indicates terror through fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.52.19 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it had, it would have quoted the words of US military, describing the actions of the US military. How exactly would that make the CIA (instead of the US military) the "terrorist"? Lars T. (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Front Liberation du Quebec

Why no mention of the FLQ? They murdered 13 people and were certainly more dangerous and violent than many of the organizations listed here!

Ideally Be bold and do it yourself but I guess given the more recent letter alleged from the Front de libération du Québec they should be included. Under what category though ? Given their penchant for speaking French could these simply be in a new category of "Language Terrorists" ? No, I guess they are like ETA so have added it under "Others" in a new country entry of Canada. Ttiotsw 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted myself as I would want to see a Canadian government entry that lists this group as a terrorist group. Ttiotsw 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Groups Bajrang Dal/VHP/RSS as terrorists

Hi,

The list of dubious organizations is quite exhaustive, but I am rather interested in the logic behind removing the BajrangDal/VHP/RSS from the list of terrorist groups. Firstly, what is the criteria or citerion for placing a particular group under this list. The IRA has been defunct as a terrorist for quite some time. It has nonetheless been included. If one were to add an organization to the list, then we need to be clear as to what would qualify a group to be designated as such. If we restrict ourselves to UN or internationally classified groups, the list would change. In the like vein, if we were to stick by US, European, or any other special interest criteria the list would mutate still further. We therefore need to be clear on the reason for inclusion. But if a group were to be inducted for advocating and actually carrying out the arbitrary murder, rape, and forced ostracization of a section of society for nationalistic or religious ideals, then the VHP/RSS/Bajrang Dal triumverate, accompanied by the Shiv Sena, are certainly valid candidates. To substantiate these claims one can simply provide quotes from their own websites, newspaper articles, and documents filed by various Indian Non-Government Groups, as well as the UNHCR.

It is imperative that the list on Wiki follow a predefined criteria so as to avoid any unnecessary debates, that for the most part are not driven by a commitment to objectivity, rather to self-imbibed nationalistic and ideological inhibitions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.109.68 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Hindu Groups Bajrang Dal/VHP/RSS as terrorists

Hi,

The list of dubious organizations is quite exhaustive, but I am rather interested in the logic behind removing the BajrangDal/VHP/RSS from the list of terrorist groups. Firstly, what are the criteria or citerion for placing a particular group under this list. The IRA has been defunct as a terrorist for quite some time. If one were to add an organization to the list, then we need to be clear as to what would qualify a group to be designated as such. If we restrict ourselves to UN or internationally classified groups, the list would change. In the like vein, if we were to stick by US, European, or any other special interest criteria the list would mutate still further. We therefore need to be clear on the reason for inclusion. But if a group were to be inducted for advocating and actually carrying out the arbitrary murder, rape, and forced ostracization of a section of society for nationalistic or religious ideals, then the VHP/RSS/Bajrang Dal triumverate, accompanied by the Shiv Sena, are certainly valid candidates. To substantiate these claims one can simply provide quotes from their own websites, newspaper articles, and documents filed by various Indian Non-Government Groups, as well as the UNHCR.

It is imperative that the list on Wiki follow a predefined criteria so as to avoid any unnecessary debates, that for the most part are not driven by a commitment to objectivity, rather to self-imbibed nationalistic and ideological inhibitions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.109.68 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

No Palestinian Nationalists?

It seems outragously inaccurate for all Palestinian terror organizations to be under Religious:Islamist, none under Nationalist:Palestinian. This is as if all organizations dedicated to blowing up abortion clinics were listed under Religious:Christian instead of...odd...there's no Issues:Abortion subcategory. In fact, no Issues category at all. Surely this is an oversight, there are clearly organizations dedicated to change on some specific political issue.

Anyway, while it may be true that all Palestinian nationalist groups happen to be populated entirely by Muslims, just as an anti-abortion group might be populated by Christians, it doesn't change the actual core motivation of the group toward the ISSUE, not the religion itself. --Kaz 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa: I didn't notice the complicated sub-classification of Palestinian nationalist terrorism into Jewish and Islamic. --Kaz 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposition to change article name

This because:

1) Terrorism is not a well-defined term, thus it should be clear in the headline that these are organisations accused of terrorism, and that it's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether they really are.

2) States are organisations. A state, or an organisation within a state, that keeps itself busy with terrorism is a terrorist organisation, simple as that. And it would be a bit silly to add like half of the states in the world, their secret services etc, onto this list, wouldn't it?

I propose we change the name of this article to something like: List of non-[governmental/state] organisations accused of [terrorism/using terrorist tactics].

I also propose that we create another article, List of [governmental/state] organisations accused of [terrorism/using terrorist tactics] where we can add organisations such as DGSE, CIA and the military of a lot of countries, to balance this article. --Merat 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to move the article? I'll do it soon otherwise. --Merat 07:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Club

No UNABOMBER freedom club?

Black Nation of Islam

I cannot find on any government site where the Nation of Islam is on any terrorist list. I checked the Homeland Security, US Attorney and Department of State websites. I have researched the Nation of Islam extensively and do not believe it should be included in this list, especially without any supporting evidence to support its inclusion. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Information Empowered 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

JDL is not listed as a terrorist organization. There will be no evidence to prove such; if they are a terrorist organization, who are they designated by? RolandR - you have a vested interest in defaming JDL - because you are against Zionsim!! Please, do not let your personal feelings get in the way of honest articling! eternalsleeper

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm - "(The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group.)".

Now, please don't accuse me of being against Zionism either, since I am an Israeli Jew. --Nupractor 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Being an Israeli-Jew does not exclude one from being anti-Zionist. The Neturei Karta has a base around Jerusalem too. That article proves nothing, and it is the only one available. They call them an extremist organiztion and then out of the blue, in an very non-official way, they go on to call them a right wing terrorist group. It's not credible at all. Find another link, it should be easy if they are a terrorist group. The people who keep adding JDL are anti-Zionists, and you can tell from their contributions. Conflict of interest for sure. eternalsleeper

Here is a speech by [2] Special Agent Mary Deborah (Debbie) Doran Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Before the 9/11/2001 Commission June 16, 2004 in which the text says, "JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, a proscribed terrorist group,". I think it is clear that the JDL is deemed to be a terrorist group. Ttiotsw 03:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

eternalsleeper, there is no conflict of interest. Common belief is that Kahanist organizations do the Zionist cause more harm than good. Are you expected to support KKK for example, just because you're white? --Nupractor 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nupractor, of course not. A Jewish person can choose if they support JDL or not, and this is their choice. But there is no documented proof that JDL is a terrorist organization. A few of their members have committed terrorist acts; such as Barcuh Goldstein, but they did so on their own accord. Are terrorist organizations allowed to operate freely, like the JDL and JDL Canada does? There may have been a time when JDL was a terrorist organization but they are not now. Certainly not in Canada. You should add where they are listed and who they are listed by in the article. I don't think that link proves anything as it is unofficial. Show me a list of terrorist groups and I guarantee you that JDL is not listed on that page. I have no reason to be defending JDL, other then the fact I know people who are active in the group and the only thing they do is protest anti-Semitism (that is right, no bombings, murders, vadalism, etc.) These people are teachers, doctors, business owners, students, not terrorists. You have it all wrong. JDL just has a bad reputation because of Barch Goldstein and a mismanaged website. I'd remove JDL again but I'd be wasting my time as there appear to be various editors who wish to defame JDL as terrorist. This is a violation of Wiki policies. If you want to know the truth about JDL, you should not rely on a single link that is an unofficial report of terrorist acts.

eternalsleeper

You are entitled to your opinion, but accusing everyone you disagree with of anti-semitism/anti-zionism is unacceptable. --Nupractor 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The list lead paragraphs say, "Therefore, this list is of organisations that are, or have been in the past, proscribed as "terrorist organizations". i.e. they need not now be proscribed. I have provided a link [3] that states specifically that "JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, a proscribed terrorist group,". It may be that now they are reformed but when they reformed they should have changed their name. Ttiotsw 03:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"a proscribed terrorist group" is a lot different from "an official terrorist group." You will find no information from the FBI that states JDL is an official terrorist group, mostly, because they aren't. And read the report, it is testimony from some woman. Doesn't prove anything at all. It's her own opinion. eternalsleeper

"they may have been listed at one time as a terror group" [4] --Denis Diderot 10:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone really wants to know if JDL is a terrorist group or not , I suggest you do a google search. This wikipedia article is very devious and misleading. eternalsleeper

This is not the JDL article. --Nupractor 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I googled for JDL is a terrorist group and (ignoring Wikipedia article and other wacky sites) I see [5] in which, yes it does say "The Jewish Defense League was dealt a significant blow in 1987 upon the conviction of several group members. Today, JDL is not actively engaged in terrorist actions. Two JDL members, however, were arrested in 2001 for their plot to bomb the office of a Lebanese-American Congressman from Orange County California and a mosque in Culver City California.". Inclusion in our Wikipedia list though is predicated on any terrorist actions both current or in the past. If the people in charge of the JDL today cared about their public profile then they would have renamed the group. This is like if I started a left-of-center party in the US and called it the "Communist Party"; what would people think first ? No matter how much money I spent touting my mix of libertarian, free market but pro-Union policies people would always see red with the name. Ttiotsw 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Call the FBI, and ask "Is the Jewish Defense League a Terrorist Organization?", and they will tell you NO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrafects (talk • contribs)

The list makes no distinction between past or present terrorist activity. JDL have clearly been designated (though they may not be considered a terrorist group today). Some phone call to the FBI isn't a reliable or verifiable reference anyway. Ttiotsw 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements like "we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League."[6] speak a lot. // Liftarn

Israel's MOSAAC?

Yes.Draconius14 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is MOSAAC a terrorist organization? Since it 'strikes fear' and uses psychological warfare techniques? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.148.57.230 (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I think you mean Mossad. If so, then for the purposes of this discussion, the answer's no. The article about "terrorist organizations" refers to independent terrorist groups, not government organizations that commit acts of terror. Those are listed under state terrorism, which is something else.

As for trying to get the Mossad registered as a state terrorist organization, good luck. I don't think they don't deserve it, but they have a shitload of supporters who'll put up a hell of a fight. 147.9.177.126 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Taliban

Shouldn't the Taliban be considered to be a terrorist organization now that they have been overthrown? I mean, look at the amount of violence linked to them. I think that they should be added on here. 71.237.201.77 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, unless some state and/or the UN designates it as a terrorist organisation (are there even any Taliban organisation to talk of?). Merat 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

the Taliban doesn't exist as such really, despite what the US claims they are truly non-organized, plus America placed CIA trained people there "like bin-laden+friend" to fight against the Russians to defend the oil pipelines from being overtaken Markthemac 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve this list

This is a very important list (especially nowadays) that, in my opinion, should be improved to become readable and informative and maybe reach FL status. Here's my opinion:

• To make it redable, include in this page only current or active organizations, and move the other ones to List of historical terrorist organizations or something like this.
• As for who should be listed, for NPOV, only the organizations that have been officially designated by a government, organizations, agency shoud be listed in this page... and all of course be backed up by references.
• In my opinion to avoid POV and ambiguities concerning ideologies (eg. Islamism vs Arab or Palestinian nationalism...) they should be listed alphabetically or by place (Europe, Middle-East...).
• Make it in a table form and include more informations. For example:

Designated terrorist organizations

Name	Place of origin	Founded	Leader	Designated by - This is probably the most important suggested improvement. Who's perspective are we using to class some organisations as terrorists, I suggest organisations designated as terrorist by th UN.
Hamas	West Bank, Gaza Strip	1987	Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniya	Australia, Canada, European Union, Israel, United States
ETA (Basque Homeland and Freedom)	Spain and southern France (Basque Country	1959	Mikel Garikoitz Aspiazu Rubina "Txeroki"	Spain

Maybe an ideology column should be added also.

Your opinion is appreciated. CG 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Carter 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds most reasonable, wonder when it's going to be added. Faro0485 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are "Black Muslims" listed as a terrorist organization?

Not all Black Muslims are terrorists. That's just stupid.

That's just absurd. That would be implying that all black Muslims are terrorists, which is obviously false. A quick search shows that the Zebra Murders that the black muslims are accused of in the article are more specifically attributed to a group within the NOI called the "Death Angels". A rewrite on that section would be appreciated.

-- Mik 23:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why that listing is there. It would be a very good idea if someone were to remove those names which aren't specifically referenced, and maybe add some of the organizations which have content on wikipedia which aren't yet listed. I might do so myself in the future, but my hands are kind of full right now with one or two other incomplete tasks. Any help from others though, would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If we start removing groups because they only did a handful of terrorist acts, or because only a handful of members engaged in terrorist acts, then the list would shrink significantly. I lean towards inclusiveness.Verklempt 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, perhaps including the "Death Angels", which are the specific group to have carried out the act, in the list, not "Black Muslims" per se, might be the best way to go. John Carter 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but a problem remains. The existence of the "Death Angels" as a subgroup of NOI is dubious, according to the experts on this subject. Meanwhile, the fact that the killers were all in the NOI is beyond doubt.Verklempt 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now, Death Angels redirects to Zebra murders. The content of that page indicates that the Death Angels were a group within the Nation of Islam. I think, if the Death Angels are the only terrorist group related to the Nation of Islam, that might be sufficient. If other related groups are also called "terrorist", then it might make sense to add a heading "Nation of Islam - related to "Death Angels" and other terrorist groups", with details of how the groups are related. John Carter 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you apply the definition of terrorism. There are many other acts of violence by NOI subgroups, but mostly they are between different factions of NOI, or else part of criminal activity by NOI subgroups. I agree that the NOI as a body has not endorsed terrorist activities, at least not since they murdered Malcolm X.Verklempt 19:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And why aren't the KKK and other white supremacist groups listed as terrorists by not only this article by by the US Government? Lilly-white terrorists are still terrorists. Muslims did not plan and carry out the Oklahoma City bombing even though it is described as "a domestic terrorist attack" in the Wiki article on that event. McVeigh and Nichols were both into the white supremacist movement and still no one at Homeland Security considers any of these hate groups as worthy of being listed as terrorist organizations.

Kulturvultur (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a place for you to ask questions about U.S. policy. Please stick to the facts of which groups are actually listed as terrorists. The KKK, although racist, has hardly killed anyone in recent years, and Tim McVeigh was part of no group. This is why Wikipedia doesn't list either as a terrorist group. 24.124.122.252 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What consitutes "designation"? (regarding the American Indian Movement)

There has been an ongoing debate on the American Indian Movement page as to whether AIM belongs in the Terrorism portal. This debate hinges on the inclusion of AIM in this list. According to Verklempt, the "designation was made back in the 70s" and is documented in The FBI Files on the American Indian Movement and Wounded Knee (a collection of FOIA releases); however, Verklempt acknowledges that s/he is "not sure the FBI's description qualifies as an official designation" and no other reference to the designation has been found.

So, what constitutes designation? Is the National Education Association a terrorist cell if the Education Secretary says so? Or is there a higher standard for official designation? If an internal FBI memo refers to a groups as terroristic or engaged in terrorism, is that casual opinionating or a bonafide designation? For that matter, must designations be public (as with the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations)? - N1h1l 14:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say, considering the Education Secretary's later apologies and attempt to frame that statement as a non-serious joke, that that one clearly wouldn't. The problem I see regarding AIM, based on my own lack of knowledge, is the fact that I don't know of a list of Domestic Terrorist Organizations kept by the US government. If someone else does, I would think that inclusion in that list would be grounds to qualify. Also, there is I think the bigger question. Does this project deal exclusively with terrorist groups or does it deal with the broader subject of terrorist actions? If the latter, does any group which has engaged in one or more terrorist action qualify as a terrorist group? I have no idea of the answer to that question should be for the group, but think it's probably the most important one we have to deal with. My personal opinion would be that any group which has engaged in at least one major (yes, I know that's a weasel word, but I can't think of a better specific one) terrorist action could be covered by this project. Changing the project banner to reflect that the project deals with terrorist groups, terrorist actions, and allegations of either or both might be useful in this regard. John Carter 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the standard set by this page is official designation. If we stick with organizations that have been officially designated, it removes our POV from the equation. It is clear that the State Department list constitutes designation. It is equally clear that the remarks of the Ed Secretary do not. The question then becomes whether any given source is the official position of a noteworthy institution or the opinion of an individual. In the case of AIM, it is unclear as the context of Verklempt's citation is unknown (s/he has not yet given page numbers let alone an excerpt or direct quotation for those of us without access to the microfilm in question). - N1h1l 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I agree with the statement that as it stands inclusion on this page seems to require some form of official (presumably government) designation. Here again I reveal my ignorance, though. Do we think that the government describing an act as "terrorist" would be sufficient to include the group that performed that "terrorist" act on this list? Not trying to split hairs here, just trying to hopefully come up with an unambiguous lead of what qualifies for inclusion in the list. And I want to be clear that I'm not actually thinking about AIM itself here one way or another, just the terms for inclusion in the list. John Carter 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see each org unambiguously defined as a terrorist group by the UN, State Department, FBI, or European Union etc... Saying that X = terrorism and Y does X, so therefore Y is a terrorist group sounds like original research. - N1h1l 18:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the definition of terrorist group changed from the current "designation" criterion to something less POV. There simply is no NPOV designating body. To label a group as "terrorist" is always a political act, in every instance. When governments define dissidents as "terrorist," it is always to gain a moral advantage.

My suggested alternative is instead of listing "terrorist" groups, we list groups that have engaged in terrorist acts. "Terrorist acts" can be more objectively defined than "terrorist groups." Any violent act against a non-military target for political purposes is a "terrorist act." We still have the POV issue of defining "political purposes," but that is an easier nut to crack than trying to penetrate the bias inherent in official designations.Verklempt 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. - N1h1l 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the original research aspect. Certainly, the standard indictment if any of any parties involved in such an act would include most of the data referenced above. I think this question, whether the word "terrorist" is to be applied as defining to groups or actions is probably the biggest one we've got in terms of the use of that word. I would grant that in some cases, like some totalitarian regimes, the statements of their governments might well be considered more than dubious. Does anyone have any ideas regarding how many groups who are not currently included in this list have committed actions which meet the criteria of terrorist activity as above? If the number of groups isn't increased substantially by changing from groups to activity, I'd say changing from terrorist organizations to terrorist activity might be the most effective and least controversial way to go. John Carter 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that you are talking about a massive increase in controversy. When we start producing these judgments, we will stop editing and start editorializing. As I stated above, "X = terrorism and Y does X, so therefore Y is a terrorist group" is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines (see Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). - N1h1l 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Permit me to clarify. If we were to change the list from a list of terrorist organizations to a list of organizations involved in terrorist acts, and defined the word terrorist specifically in the introduction, using the baseline agreement on the legal definition of the term as per Definition of terrorism, something along the lines of "criminal actitivity done for the purpose of intimidating or coercing a population or government", or just those cases where the language appropriate to the definition in that jurisdiction is substantively used, I don't see how that could in any way be seen as "advancing a position". Then, we would be taking the extant legal definition, or, in some cases, the subsequent legal definition, as defined in that jurisdiction. I don't see how that's "advancing a position", rather using the definition in place in that area. I would acknowledge that, in some cases where the reputation of a given government regarding legal matters is fairly regularly regarded by outside observers as being at best dubious, some sort of source other than the government itself might be sought, though. If I'm missing something, please indicate what it is. John Carter 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why, if a group is engaged in terrorism, a reliable source saying just that can't be found. Why must we synthesize the legal definitions of a jurisdiction with the activities of a group to derive these designations? That seems contrary to Wikipedia convention. If you disagree, that is fine. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd like to get some outside input from the Wikipedia community before we start making changes to the existing structure. - N1h1l 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree. The problem lies in what constitutes a reliable source for these purposes. As with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism, I think the word itself is sufficiently inciting of emotion that we might want to use our own specific definition of the term, although that definition would necessarily have to substantively agree with those of many other entities. I don't think however that using a definition wikipedia arrives at would necessarily constitute original research, if that definition substantively agrees with one or more of the existing definitions. Also, all I was basically trying to say above was that, if something meets a Duck test, like the existing legal definition in an area, it qualifies as being described by that term. Using such an probably currently existing definition would clearly not qualify as original research. John Carter 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel is recognised as a Terrorist state

That's stupid. The Israeli's have the land by conquest, not by religious means, as they say. The Brits had the land, and they gave it to the Jews.Draconius14 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes land was given to the Israelis by the british BUT only 56% and the arab population was given 42% but with a larger population which was between 1947-48. during the Arab-Israeli war( the israelis decided to take palestinian/arab land given by the U.N. Partition Plan. Not all of present day Israel belonged to the first official Israelis.Homan05 —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel is recognised as a Terrorist state by various organisations and countries.

After the revolutionary gaurd of Iran was recognised as a Terrorist organisation by USA, Iran has (or is going to) recognise the CIA as a terroist organisation (and another military body of USA i cannot currently remember)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#Possible_IRGC_terrorist_designation_by_the_United_States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloe (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This would belong to this article: State terrorism. But you should better find solid references. Nicolas1981 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Various groups removed

• Animal Rights Militia
• Combat 18
• Racial Volunteer Force
• Column 88
• An Gof
• Scottish National Liberation Army

To the best of my knowledge, none of these have been designated as "terrorist organizations" by other notable organizations. And for what it's worth, while MIPT may be a good source for determining if any organisation has been designated as terrorist by any governments etc, it is only a resource website and inclusion on there should not be used as a criteria for inclusion on this list in my opinion, as I've seen for quite a few other organisations. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Scratch the SNLA, however they were on the list twice in different sections, so the removal is still ok. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All organisations removed.

Crossposted onto the WP:ANI and #wikipedia.

I have removed all organisations on this list due to the article being in the category Articles that may contain original research since December 2006, as a test case to my "long-term problems" proposal. Editors are requested not to revert it, but to use sources to build it in a non-biased verifiable way. Thank you. Will ^(talk) 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A large number of those orgs are cited to MIPT, a perfectly respectable source. An omnibus blanking is overkill at this point. If you're serious about the work, then engage it piecemeal the way that conscientious editors do.Verklempt 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the only way to kickstart proper editing. Don't revert it back . Use the previous edits as the base. Will ^(talk) 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean Category:Articles that may contain original research since December 2006. LegitimateSock 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we remove only the unsourced parts, rather than expecting people to go through and manually replace all the stuff that's already sourced? Blanking everything, included the sourced stuff seems really backwards. -- Mark Chovain 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just read your VP proposal, and comment on ANI. There hasn't even been any discussion, let alone consensus. You were bold, you were reverted, so now discuss. -- Mark Chovain 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was going to do. I'm selecting the most prominent ones, such as al-Qaeda, and such, to be put back first, then smaller ones after. Will ^(talk) 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Chovain that your procedure is backwards. Please replace the cited orgs very quickly, like today.Verklempt 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all sorted now. Will has now removed only the unsourced parts. I hope to do a mass removal of some of the indented "comments" - most of this stuff is in the relevant articles, and providing selective point-form commentary on organisations does not aid our NPOV goals. -- Mark Chovain 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

MIPT

The vast majority of references here are to the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism's "Terrorism Knowledge Base"

But this article claims to be a list of "organizations that are, or have been in the past, designated as "terrorist organizations" by other notable organizations, including the United Nations and national governments."

While MIPT seems to be a good source of references, I can't see that just being on their website justifies listing a group in this article. Surely we should be sticking to official governmental listings such as [7] and [8]? --Stormie 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MIPT is a research institution supported by the US federal govt. In that sense, it meets the criterion as a "notable organization". I have concerns about limiting the list to official govt cites, given the political influence over such. Surely independent research orgs are a better source, even if only quasi-independent.Verklempt 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If this was a "List of terrorist organizations" I'd agree, but for a "List of designated terrorist organizations" surely the only reliable sources are the people who do the actual designating, i.e. governments? --Stormie 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree - the lead section says, "[...] this list is of organizations that are, or have been in the past, designated as "terrorist organizations" by other notable organizations, including the United Nations and national governments, where the proscription has a significant impact on the group's activities.[']". Listing by MIPT alone is unlikely to have a significant impact on a group's activities. This is going to take a lot of work to get right :(. -- Mark Chovain 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Per my comments two sections above, MIPT is a useful reference for finding out if an organisation has been designated as terrorist by the UN or various governments, but their inclusion on the website should not be taken to mean they are designated as terrorist. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Case in point - Red Brigades. MIPT says they aren't currently designated as a terrorist organisation by any notable organisation. While they can be included if they were designated in the past, the current reference doesn't support their inclusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - I think I'm saying the same thing though) To take an example (arbitrarily selected solely because it's the last on the list), Black Liberation Army is not a prescribed organisation (that we can tell). Even though many of their members are now in jail for work that the group did, do we all agree that they should not be on the list because they are not a "proscribed terrorist organisation"? -- Mark Chovain 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We mostly agree. I'm saying it shouldn't be on the list at present with only MIPT to support its inclusion. They may be references proving that it was designated in the past, but MIPT doesn't prove that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm probably going to start slowly removing non-proscribed organisations a few at a time. I'll start from the bottom if someone else feels like going from the top :). -- Mark Chovain 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think we should make sure we do a quick search for more sources before removing these, especially for Asian, African, and South American groups, as MIPT had a Western bias on their designation status. -- Mark Chovain 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

article on the political mish-mash about determining who are terrorrists

Just found this, which may be of interest here.[[9]], "THE EU, THE FARC, THE PKK, AND THE PFLP: Distinguishing Politics From Terror". It could serve as base to introduce the difficulty and political mish-mash involved in the process. I do not feel diplomatic enough to discuss it, it just looks like it's got good ideas in it and that's all I can say.Basicdesign 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on presentation table

This is the first time i visit this page (only came here becoz found article and to suggest it). Straight away it seemed to me that a table would be a h**l of a lot easier to follow. CG 20:54, 14 June 2007, had the same idea.

I don't quite understand what s/he means by "(Designated by - This is probably the most important suggested improvement {fully agreed - the bit unclear to me comes just after}) Who's perspective are we using to class some organisations as terrorists, I suggest organisations designated as terrorist by th UN." I thought that the whole point of the suggestion included telling who designates whom? Which would mean that not just the UN list would be used as reference, but every government would be shown as what it decides is a terrorrist organization (not very good syntax from me there, am being confused, hope you see what I mean). Or maybe s/he means to include the organizations that are listed as terrorists by the UN, which may need saying since the UN is not a gouvernment in the usually accepted meaning for 'government'. Besides, the UN has its politics too, which are not necessarily coherent either. Of course it also surely has its own list of terrorrists, and it does seem relevant that it be mentionned in front of the organization(s) on its list.

Apart from that point which seems a bit unclear to me, I very much agree to a table, more or less as shown above by CG. Does anyone disagree with it, and could they please say why? Am rather busy at the moment, but if there is no objection, and if it hasn't been done when I come back here, I may just have a start on it (in a few months though). The template could indeed be as shown by CG, seems ok to me: "Name, Place of origin, Founded, Leader, Designated by, Ideology;" I prefer "Aims" or "Policy objectives" to "Ideology", by the way, seems less 'sort of biased'; any opinion on that point? More columns may pose a formatting problem (? need input from you people there too) but could add "Financed by" if that's possible. Basicdesign 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claim about the Provisionl IRA removed

"The U.S. State Department removed the PIRA from its list of terrorist organizations in 2002". I can't see the source in question as it's down, but it's also contradicted by other sources. In May 2001 the US State Department said they hadn't designated due to their 1997 ceasefire, and that was still the case in August 2001. I find it difficult to believe that (despite the still intact ceasefire) they designated them after August 2001 then undesignated them in 2002. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That ref is back up, and actually says they were designated by the State Department as late as 2000 - it doesn't give the date or circumstances for their delisting, so I reckon we leave it as is until someone gets time to look into the real story. -- Mark Chovain 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes I see it now. Considering it's directly contradicted by statements from the US State Dept themselves, I don't give it much weight at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup progress

Well I've gone through and cleaned up the "Other" section. Anyone care to review my changes? I was unsure what to do with ANC, as we now know that the terrorism didn't start until after they were banned. I've put the name of the military wing first, and left it in, because it technically fits our criteria. The military wing performed terrorist acts, and a ban by the SA govt affected their operation. -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - so I've now done "Issue Specific", "Cuban Exile", and "Anarchist". Only one organisation remained out of all of those. Out of interest, it's a Greek-based anarchist group that has been banned in the US. I hope to do "Leftist, Communist, Leninist, Trotskyst, Maoist and Marxist", "Ethnic terrorists" and "Anti-communists" over the weekend. This all takes up a lot of time, unfortunately. -- Mark Chovain 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Irgun removed...again

Firstly, I don't appreciate the personal attack with an edit summary of Looks like we have some Sayanim thinning the list, no?. The sources do not prove anything. The Jerusalem Post article does not say Irgun were a designated terrorist organisation, MIPT certainly don't (and if you think they do provide a direct link to where it says it on the site, as I've looked and can't see it), and timripley.co.uk doesn't say there were designated either. Designated is the key, not the use of the word "terrorist" to describe them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the fact that there seems to be a constant series of attempts to remove Irgun from a list where it clearly belongs. Look above to the JDL discussion - just because a terrorist group is old, or no longer functioning, or that certain sources don't believe it to be a terror group, doesn't mean it doesn't belong on this page. Irgun was clearly a terrorist group, and this seems like more of an attempt to sanitize the Wikipedia than it seems to be a good faith attempt to improve the Wikipedia. The comment about Sayanim seems apt as well, as there is a constant attempt to remove the Jewish lists from this page, but you don't see people trying to remove the Islamic or Sikh or Christian groups on a daily basis. I had mistakenly pasted the wrong link, I corrected my error. You can read the British information on the Irgun terror group at the corrected reference. Sukiari (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. You added Irgun right after discussions (see sections above) about whether MIPT whether was an acceptable source on its own, and MIPT doesn't even have Irgun on there to begin with. That's why it was removed. You are yet again using MIPT as a reference, and yet you have not provided a link to anywhere on the site that backs up the claim that MIPT prove they were designated. Using the Jerusalem Post article again is pointless, it's already been debunked. The latest source provided is interesting, but it's no use for inclusion in this article. The key word is "designated", that simply shows they were "described" as terrorist. For example this is the list of organisations currently designated by the UK government. Designation refers to a specific status, which that source does not prove. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion on both sides here: Irgun is in MIPT TKB, but under an alternate name: http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=4017. Sukiari: there's no attempt to sanitise this page; such claims of conspiracy do you no favours. We're in the middle of cleaning the list up, as it's got completely out of control. It's not enough that Irgun was a terrorist organisation; they need to have been designated as such by a "notable organisation", and that designation must have affected their operation (see the lead section). The MIPT ref doesn't say that they were ever officially designated by anyone, so that ref alone is not enough to put it on the list. If you can find a ref saying that they were put on any official lists, or banned as an organisation, then by all means, put it back in. Our discussion from a few days ago came to the conclusion that "when" they were designated is not important: If they were ever designated, then that's fine. I can't see the link you posted, so I can't directly comment on the quality of your ref (it's broken), but please note that it's not enough that the British government called them terrorists: we already know lots of people and governments called them terrorists; they need to have been officially designated in a way that affected their operations (funds seized, membership outlawed, etc).

Please be aware that there are currently many groups on this list that shouldn't be: we should be able to get rid of them over the coming months though. I'm not going to get in an edit war over this one entry at this point in time, but if the group is in when I get around to cleaning up that section of the list, and the references do not support their inclusion, then I will be removing it. -- Mark Chovain 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated: National Archives link is up again. I've read through summary for section "Irgun (KV 5/34-41)", and can't see anything saying they were designated as a terrorist organisation. They were investigated over a bunch of terrorist attacks, but do not appear to have been banned as an organisation. -- Mark Chovain 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref MIPT, this refers to a totally different group from what I can see, it says "Although members traced their organizational model back to the Irgun and Stern Gang" (emphasis added) and "EYAL became active shortly after the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords", so putting MIPT as a reference is just false from what I can see. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes - good point. And see my comment above regarding National Archives reference. -- Mark Chovain 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've readded it. It is well known that Irgun was considered a terrorist organization, even by the majority of the Israelis. Please see the Irgun article, where there is a direct link to a BBC webpage asserting the British designation. The British are as an official organization as we're going to get in this matter (I believe, to require UN identification for each group would be over the top). In any case, with all due respect, OneNight, I believe that removing this one select group among the many on the page would introduce some serious POV pushing issues. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. I see you're still using MIPT, care to explain why? That still doesn't prove anything, outlawed =/= designated terrorist organisation. I already checked the Irgun page several days ago, this was being used as a source for the designation (amongst other things), which was totally unacceptable and I removed it.

Why are you talking about the removal of Irgun as if it's a long standing entry? It isn't, it was only added on 4 December with a fake MIPT reference (unless you're prepared to provide a direct link to where on the site the reference for Irgun is, I've asked repeatedly without any success). This was right after discussions about MIPT where it was agreed to clean up the list, so I will quite happily remove fake (aka POV pushing) additions to the list. The burden of evidence is on you to prove they were designated, please do so. In the interim, please feel free to clean up the rest of the groups that don't have reliable sourcing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It says terrorist as well: Mike Thomson tracks down former members of the outlawed Irgun and the Stern Gang terrorist groups. Please try to read the text more closely. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please learn what designated actually means. For example the Provisional Irish Republican Army are a designated terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, as this shows. However in the Republic of Ireland they are not a designated terrorist organisation, they are an illegal organisation under the 1939 Offences Against the State act which you can see here. Hence, in one country they are designated and another they are not, even though they are illegal in the Republic of Ireland and even if someone from the government of the Republic of Ireland describes them as "terrorist". Therefore, until you provide a reference that shows they were DESIGNATED as opposed to DESCRIBED they don't go on the list. It's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you being so confrontational about this? Can we not work this out civilly? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being confrontational?! First I get accused of being a Jew working for Mossad, then you have the temerity to tell me to "Please try to read the text more closely" when I had read the text very closely (and that applies to every "source" provided), and it doesn't source that Irgun were designated. You find a source that does and I'll happily add it myself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You dont' find the British designated the leader of the movement as terrorist sufficient ground to designate the group as terrorist? As stated above, I think this is lawyering and verges on POV pushing. And yes, you were being confrontational, using all caps and bold will usually do that. "It's not rocket science" is as well. If you have an issue with something I've said, please deal with it calmly. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I have to keep repeating myself, I will gladly emphasise the words you seem to be having great difficulty understanding. Where does the information you've written above come from? The Jerusalem Post article by any chance, which says "the dissident Zionist underground Irgun leader Menachem Begin who was wanted as a terrorist by the British"? No, that doesn't prove anything at all. That's someone writing about the event sixty years later, and it doesn't prove that Irgun were a designated terrorist organisation. This article is not called list of terrorist organizations, it's called list of designated terrorist organizations. The only POV is when people add organisations that they think were designated terrorist without providing references to prove it, like for example this edit complete with fake reference. If you can't back up what you're adding with sources it doesn't belong, it's that simple. For the record I don't have any POV with regards to Irgun, until they were falsely added to this list I'd never even heard of them. If you want a modern comparison of why a square peg doesn't go in a round hole, try David Copeland and the National Socialist Movement on for size. Copeland was wanted as a terrorist, but that didn't make the NSM a designated organisation. Granted he wasn't the leader, but it's one thing to say a leader/member is considered a terrorist (and there's no contemporary source to prove that with Irgun) but another entirely to say an entire organisation is designated terrorist. Simply being an illegal organisation wouldn't be enough either, for example political party Sinn Féin were illegal in Northern Ireland until April 1974. There's plenty of banned organisations in Germany, for example National Offensive, German Alternative, Nationalist Front, the German wing of Blood and Honour. This article is narrow in scope to prevent precisely this sort of problem, if an organisation hasn't been designated they shouldn't be on here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ your points are well made, and address the issue in a very clear manner. Until a reference is provided that shows they were DESIGNATED as opposed to DESCRIBED they should not go on the list. The Article is clearly titled List of designated terrorist organizations, if an organisation has not been designated they should not be on the list. --Domer48 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the 3d type of terror

So far wikipedia has listed 2 types of terrorists, ones that want to turn back the clock and others who seek power. There is another type. those who seek to preserve the staus quo. Drug cartels fit this catagory. They have a certain amount of power and income and they are willing to murder & destroy to keep it. This subject should be amended to include them.

Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide removed

The usual MIPT reference is being cited for this addition, but the MIPT page for the group has no proof of designation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada (Quebec)

FLQ - Front de liberation du Quebec Milice Patriotique Quebecoise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.184.85 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S.-IRAN

In my opinion, the u.s. army and CIA should be listed on this article because Iran has designate them as terrorist organizations. of course ONLY organizations of anytype should be listed as terrorist if it is designated by a state of government. so, that explains my reason.Why should only top governments or countrys with better technology have the right to say whose a terrorist or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

need to add these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Christian_terrorist_organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdiishrati (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs to be reworked

The title of this article, "List of designated terrorist organizations," is overbroad. It's also an invitation for bias. There are tons of comments on this talk page like: "Such and such should be considered a terrorist organization because of X" or "Such and such should be considered a terrorist organization because of Y."

Designated by who? Nation states? International organizations like the UN, or the EU? What's an organization? The CIA is an organization. Nation states are organizations. The title doesn't make it clear.

I propose that since the page at the moment is obviously coming from a Western, (an American or European) perspective, we make that clear and choose to call the page "List of terrorist organizations designated by the US government" or whatever government or organization you want. There are certainly enough organizations designated by the U.S. as such to make a substantive page. The designation process in the United States is also complex. The U.S. Secretary of State was given the authority to designate an organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by through Section 219 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1189 as amended under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The US Department of the Treasury was given the authority to designate organizations as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists" by the United Nations Participation Act, codified in 22 U.S.C. § 287c and by Executive Order 13224. The secretary of state's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations is here, and the treasury department's list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons is here. This page makes no mention of that differentiation. Not to mention the fact that this page does not take into account historical designations. While the page does attempt to attribute a source to the designations currently there, there has been uneven acceptance of some organizations as "terrorists" in spite of the possibility for such attribution. If Iran has designated the CIA as a terrorist organization, under the way the page is set up currently, it would logically be a "designated terrorist organization." It shouldn't be hard to create lists for organizations designated by the EU, the UN, Israel, Iran, etc. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irgun and Lehi

The article is a list "of organizations that are, or have been in the past, designated as "terrorist organizations" by other notable organizations, including the United Nations and national governments." It's not clear to me which "notable organizations" designated Irgun and Lehi as "terrorist organizations". Can someone please name the organizations, and provide the relevant quote? And, by the way, Ralph Bunche is not the United Nations, and his reports aren't designations. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking a second time. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What, "the British, the Jewish Agencies, the Arabs and most of the West labelled the Irgun a terrorist organisation" not good enough for you? You want perhaps the Middle East Quarterly to sign off so we can believe it finally? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Stern Gang, see Weinberg, Leonard (2003). Political Parties and Terrorist Groups. Routledge. p. 68. Three days after the murder, the government declared the Stern gang a terrorist organisation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Irgun and Lehi are now back under the Jewish section as it is the relevant section for them as the link makes clear. Dean Armond 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have reverted you because as it was explained, they had no religious aim but only nationalist ones.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perliger and Weinberg describe Irgun and Lehi as "fundamentalist", but I don't think that represents the majority view in academia. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The [[Lehi] article gives the text of "Principles of Rebirth" written by Avraham Stern, founder of Lehi, stating the ideology of the organisation. There are many references to the Jewish religion including;

• Principle 1 - reference to the covenant of the Jewish people
• Principle 2 - a quotation from Genesis used to define the borders of the homeland
• Principle 5 - citation of the Midrash Vayikara Rabba 35:8
• Principle 6- use of the word "Hebrew"
• Principle 12 - the phrase "Jewish morality and prophetic justice"
• Principle 17 - Hebrew language, "The Holy Language" Leshon Ha-Kodesh to be revived
• Principle 18 - The Third Temple to be built.

These examples illustrate a strong link between the aims of Lehi and the Jewish religion. Could you undo your amendment? Dean Armond 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct that these are references of judaism in the LHI objectives !

I will revert to show my good will but this is not as simple or rather it is more complex.

Lehi ideology is often compared with italian fascism. Italian fascism was a nationalist movement and all these movements it took references in its glory period : antique Rome.

When jewish extremist movement are analysed, it becomes difficult because the roots of the jewish nationalism comes from their religious period and their holy books.

For this reason, I think it is not pertinent to tag as religious LHI unless it had religious authorities in his members or was more than usual supported by religious (which is not the case as far as I know)

This is eg illusrated in Leonard Weinberg, Religious Fundamentalism and Political Extremism - chap 6 Jewish Self-Defence and TErrorist Groups Priori to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Tradition. He shows the paradox I refer here. He writes (p.94):

These radicals had come to view the world in Messanic terms. They defined themselves as a vangard of the enlightened whose task was to lead the masses or the working class to victory over the forces of injustice and thereby redeem the world.

But adds immediately :

We may be accused of reductionism, but the "non-Jewish" Jews (sic) who embarked on this course were of course expression a secular version of an important element of the jewish religious experience.

In the following pages, he gives the different motivations of these several groups, each time with nationalist objectives with references sometimes to jewish tradition.

Eg, he writes (p.108) :

Lehi's organisation ideology places its world view in the quasi-fascit radical Right, which is characterised by xenophobia, a national egotism that completely subordinates the undividual to the needs of the nation, ant-liberalism, total denial of democracy, and a highly centralised government.

...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect the detail of your argument, but this is not something that can be solved in Wikipedia. Anyone looking for information on Jewish terrorist groups will want to know about these particular examples, and I don't think it is completely incorrect to list them as Jewish.Verklempt (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't think We may be accused of reductionism, but the "non-Jewish" Jews (sic) who embarked on this course were of course expressing a secular version of an important element of the jewish religious experience. is sufficient to keep them in the "nationalist" variety, with perhaps a footnote explaining it? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is akin to claiming that because some people involved in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 just wanted to get rid of the Shah, the revolution wasn't religiously motivated.Lars T. (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg Could you please return Irgun and Lehi to the religious section? There has been some discussion both on this page and on the archived discussion page about the nature of these two organisations, are they religious, nationalist or ethnic or some combination thereof, or indeed perhaps something else. I have given several examples above that would seem to establish a link between one of the groups and the Jewish religion and Ceedjee was gracious enough to return them to the religious section. Could I ask you to do the same, at least until a consensus develops about the correct designation for these groups?
Dean Armond 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamas & Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine

• Hamas is an acronym of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, which means : "Islamic Resistance Movement".
  It is currently in the nationalism section. Should it not be moved toward the religious section ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Same question for Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. Ceedjee (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Hamas has been put twice in the article, at both places... isn't 1 enough ? But where ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If Hamas doesn't count as religiously inspired, nothing does. That's the section it should be in. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is also my mind but I would prefer somebody else proceed to the move (in fact the deletion), if there is a consensus for this :-)

Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Earth Liberation Front

officially designated as a terrorist group - see Wikipedia article 68.183.223.176 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. I just now added ELF and two related groups. Frotz (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PLO distinct from the PA

The article refers to the PLO as having become the Palestinian Authority however this didn't happen, as they are distinct organizations with different purposes and goals (the PA was set up by Oslo to administer the west bank and gaza, the PLO represents all of the Palestinian people wherever they may be living) -- Palestinians in the diaspora have no representation in the PA, but they are represented and often active with the PLO. In addition, the PA has never been designated a terrorist organization, and given that its existence is the result of a US-backed treaty between the PLO and Israel (Oslo), it seems unlikely that anyone would designate the PA as a terrorist entity anytime soon. Bugg42 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

Shouldn't the Jewish Defense League be listed? Strongbrow (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reference saying they have been designated as a terrorist organisation? -- Mark Chovain 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will this do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League#Terrorism -- 161.185.151.193 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Or this? http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0799/9907081.html -- 161.185.151.193 (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

MIPT TKB gone

MIPT's TKB appears to be off the air. This is our main reference for this article :-o. Any suggestions on what we do with the entries with only the MIPT ref? -- Mark Chovain 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mipt.org/TKB.asp "elements of the system will be merged with the Global Terrorism Database" — http://www.start.umd.edu/data/gtd/tkb.asp Lars T. (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - Here begins the long process of updating our refs. Looks like a good opportunity to verify entries while we're at it :). -- Mark Chovain

The MIPT list under External References is still pointing to an invalid site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.217.194 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to re-organize

Many of the organizations in this list have been "called" or "referred to as" terrorist organizations, but I'm not sure that cuts it. Wikipedia:Words to Avoid suggests that "In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article." A list like this, even when footnoted, is still in unqualified narrative voice, unless it's clear from the text who is calling who what.

This list should be reorganized into sections based on who is doing the designation. Many countries have published official lists of designated terrorist organizations, and would rather see those listed here because they have clear effects for these organizations. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding biases in listing organizations

Is it fair that most of the Islamic terrorist organizations listed are only recognzied as terrorists by majority Christian countries? This is a sensitive issue, but a little suggestion here - perhaps we should list those that are recognized by their own home countries, or perhaps the United Nations, as terrorist organizations - much like those USA-based organizations. Few of those organizations listed seem to be recognized as terrorist organizations outside the U.S-Israeli alliance. Moreover, the Hamas is a legitimate political party that has support from much of its people, and Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001. If you would consider them to be terrorist organizations, then it should be listed under state terrorism, or at least it should be made clear that these are not always independent terrorist organizations. Naurmacil (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Communist terror

How about adding a section of communist terror listing the sources from Communist terrorism? Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean state terror by people like Stalin, Mao or Castro against their own people, that probably wouldn't count - the groups listed here are supposed to be rebel, not officially affiliated with any government. State terrorism is its own seperate thing.

However, there were/are many rebel groups with communist/leftist leanings that fit the profile of this article and could be included. Here are a few; Action Directe in France, the Red Army Faction in West Germany, the Italian Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army, the Weather Underground in the U.S, the FARC in Colombia, the Shining Path in Peru, all of them definitely communist. Other groups with leftist ideologies, not communist but close to the above; the ETA in the Basque territories, the FLNC in Corsica, the PFLP in Palestine and certain factions of the IRA. That's certainly not a comprehensive list, but it'll do for a start.

Does it need its own section? I don't see why... a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of ideology. 147.9.177.77 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

reorganize

The listing at the moment fills to real function. The relevant issue is who issues the designation, not arbitrary divisions into political/religious sublists. Perhaps a table could be used, were organizations would be listed and indicated which country designates them as terrorist might be more suitable? Example:

Organization	Country A	Country B	Country C
People's Front of Judea
Judean People's Front

--Soman (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now shifted to article mainspace. Notably, many of the 'designated' terrorist organizations previously listed had never been officially designated as terrorist organizations by any government. --Soman (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Many missing organizations

What of terrorist groups recognised by the Russian government, or long-disbanded terrorist groups such as Red Army Faction or the Japanese Red Army or enviromentalist groups? Nicknackrussian (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add what you feel needs to be there. Just cite from somewhere, make sure there aren't made-up groups or whathaveyou. WP:Bold. Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an authoritative reference for the Russian list? The only link was an article in a Kuwaiti newspaper, I'd prefer some sort of press statement from Russian govt. A problem with the Russian list was that it was seemingly more vague than the Western listings. As per defunct groups, i think they fall outside of the scope. The whole 'designation' issue is a rather recent concept, and should not be used for retrospect. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Context of the table

It is unclear from the preceding paragraph as to what this table actually relates to. What are the ticks indicating? Further clarification is needed here. In addition there does not seem to be any references cited for the construction of this table. Gwolfe28 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also why only the US/UK/EU and the like on there. Certainly Aus/Can are very minor when it comes to this. We should get rid of the table and let it stand by country perhaps. Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The table should only be modified or broken down once we have sources cited for it. I see that some of the organisations wiki pages have sources sited for the recognition by each country as a terrorist organisation. This does not seem to be consistent or accurate - as it states in the al Qaida page that the EU has recognised it as a terrorist organisation, yet this table does not represent this. Can someone shed some light as to the best way to update, validate and maintain this tableGwolfe28 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to improvements and modifications of the list, perhaps having a disclaimer explaining its usage. The way the article was before was a complete mess of OR, this list gives to opportunity to compare terrorism policies of Western countries. There is an obvious systematic bias issue here, but Russian and Chinese listings are constructed somewhat differently. --Soman (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Soman, can you share with us any information or links to these Russian and Chinese listings or individual designations ? Thanks a lot ! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should be moved to "List of western designated terrorist organizations" in this case. Especially with it's limited worldview. Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Khalistan/Punjab

There are some Khalistani groups proscribed in Canada. Where are those? Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In the list; BK, BKI, ISYF. --Soman (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the table up into groups

If nobody objects, I'll divide the table into groups in the same manner it was done previously. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would personally object. Categorizing groups, not based on designators but by arbitrary classifications is opening up the article for OR. The earlier version was a complete mess, with a large amount of groups who actually had not been designated as terrorist by any state. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll divide the table into the same groups as before, and include sources that verify their membership of the group. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one am satisfied with the table. I think that splitting again into sections would decrease readability and add unnecessary bias. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Page more

The article should be moved to "List of western designated terrorist organizations" in this case. Especially with it's limited worldview. (see above) Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

India

according to the source list a few more groups need to be added here. Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more here: http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/details.asp?id=nov1308/at05 Couple of North east groups like the NDFB, HNLC, ULFA, and ANVC (although the latter's proscribed status is expiring). I know they're already here, (ANVC is not) but the souce can be valuable to show it's status as banned will be till 2010. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army

Are you sure that it is to the original 1917 - 1922 IRA that UK Terrorist designation refers. Just wondering if it was to the Provisional IRA to which it refers. Kdanc86 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Iran and the US

The United States has labeled Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC; aka Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) as "terrorist organizations".

In response, Iran has labeled the CIA and the U.S. Army as terrorist organizations.

Should the article reflect this?VR _talk 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that Iran has a systematic methodology for designating terrorist organizations, regular publishes such a list, I don't see why not. It would be amusing. If the "designation" was merely a rhetorical shot across the bow, I think such material would go better in one of the other articles, perhaps under accusations against the United States government. Ray (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have agreed that state terrorism is not to be listed here, am I right? I am just saying we should be consistent, is all. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be included. Both clearly listed each other as a "terrorist organization" and not a "state terrorist organization", it also shows the reliability/neutrality of these designations.

What should first be done is that this list does not limit itself to commonwealth nations, The US, EU & India. It should actually include every nation of the world. Does anybody know a way to adjust this page so we could easily add many other nations? Grey Fox (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO adding a column for every country would kill this article, if at all only for 2 or 3 more countries. The rest could be added to a "others" column, either in (small) plain text, or as a footnote listing all the countries. Lars T. (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes little sense, because why are these specific countries listed, and not the rest? Grey Fox (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly makes more sense than adding a column for every little country. The only real alternative is striking the the matrix altogether, and listing every country that designates after the organization. Lars T. (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a columns problem yet. Feel free to add more countries/columns, and for each country, add a solid reference to this country's list of designated terrorist organizations (a decree for instance). I would be really glad to see more countries appear. After 5 more countries are added, we will have to think about a different design, but I don't see this happening any time soon, unfortunately. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"globalize" flag

The "globalize" flag has recently been removed [10]. I however feel that the 6 cited organizations share a pretty similar point of view. We need the lists of more countries. How can we claim it is a global article if we don't include the point of view of Russia and People's Republic of China ? Not to mention Iran and past organizations such as Nazi Germany. Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the globalize tag, carrying as it does a presumption of deliberate POV on the part of the authors, is inappropriate. There's nothing in the article which is intrinsically biased or strikes me as a deliberate omission, and the point of view is decidedly global and from diverse nations. Nothing would keep somebody from adding additional information. I for one would welcome a list of organizations the Russians view as terrorist. It would be quite interesting to the student of comparative politics. Ray (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ray, you didn't address the concrete points raised, and rather answered an abstract point that no one raised. I think Nicolas has a valid point, but I am not sure the tag is a substitute for actually expanding the article, yet maybe Nicholas has no time and just wants to raise the attention of the community. That said, would you rather have an NPOV tag? Because that is the only other substitute to the "globalize" tag that would still invite editors to expand and get involved. I am a huge fan of this list, but I do think its current state has geo-bias. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am proposing to restore the flag because the task of making it an unbiased article is huge and I can't achieve it alone, it involves analyzing the huge archives of hundreds of countries. The flag is a call for editors to research on this topic. The flag should not be felt as an insult, please read its description. The Wikipedia project behind this flag states that its main method is to "remedy omissions", that's exactly what we need. I disagree with RayAYang that the flag carries "a presumption of deliberate POV on the part of the authors". I believe that everybody here is contributing in good faith, and that this article is getting better, and will get better as more editors see this flag and get involved. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As we expand, this list has a potential of becoming useless, because it has a large matrix, organizations vs listings.

I think we should modify this list, if not now, in the near future.

Here is my proposal:

1) Divide the list into three major sections:

a) An expansion of the discussion in the intro around the term, with linking to the appropriate articles as per WP:SUMMARY.

b) A listing of countries that have methods to list terrorist organizations. Even if we do not have access to the listing, because for example it is not regularly updated on the internet, we should offer this information. It would also incorporate the "sources" part of the table. We would keep a running tally of the countries with such list as a number. You will see why soon.

c) A listing of organizations, with a single box containing footnotes to the sources, rather than a box with a check mark. Then another box with a tally of how many of the listed countries designated as terrorist, and a box with a checkmark if a given organization is listed by a majority of countries.

I have created an example at Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Proposal so that it can be better visualized. It is not a complete change proposal just a visualization of what I propose. In fact, I would do some advance wiki stuff in the final version to do things like keeping automatic tally etc.

Please comment!

Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think (a) and (b) are interesting ideas, but I think we don't need (c) by now. (c) makes it difficult to make interesting comparizons, so I would rather wait until it is necessary (that is, when we have found 20 lists or so. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas and UK

Like Australia, the UK designates only the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades as a terrorist organization, me thinks this should be reflected. Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that the Izz al-Din al-Qassem should be listed separately, with a mention that it is the military wing of HAMAS. The way it is done now puts unverifiable information (ie Hamas is not a designated terrorist as per UK), and footnotes the Australian mention give undue weight. I think the list follows the format of the US State Dept. list too closely for not being biased. That said, I agree with changing it. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Didit. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenpeace, et all

Why are Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and PETA not on this list?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.42.165 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because no sensible editor thinks they fit the definition. If you disagree, please do not again unilaterally edit the organization's article, as you recently did with Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Instead, begin a thread on the talk page of the article about the organization, presenting specific information, cited to reliable sources, that would support such a description. JamesMLane t c 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army

I have amended this link from the Irish Republican Army (which refers to the variant that ceased to exist in around 1922) to List of IRAs (which includes all the variants since 1922). See this link in particular paragraph 62; "Whichever way one poses the question it is necessary to construe what is meant by the term "The Irish Republican Army" within Schedule 2. The Attorney General's submission is that this is an umbrella or generic name (a blanket description as my Lord calls it) intended and apt to include all manifestations of that body. In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, following the split in 1969 between the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA (and the Official IRA's declaration of a ceasefire in 1972) the name covered both branches. Similarly in 2000, after the further split in May 1997 between the Provisional IRA and the Real IRA (and the Real IRA's commission of the Omagh bombing in August 1998), the name covered both factions (and in turn Continuity IRA). The IRA, in short, as a named organisation, encompasses any and all smaller organisations which by their name claim to embody or represent the IRA". The "Irish Republican Army" referred to in the legislation is not the Irish Republican Army but any modern variant using the name, therefore it is better to link to the list I think? O Fenian (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Home Office just lists "Irish Republican Army", so I would say you did right. Should we check the "Real IRA"/"UK" cell as well, because we understand it as indirectly designated ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NCTB

Yay, I have found one more country! :-) This list is from the Netherlands: http://www.nctb.nl/Kennisbank_terrorisme/Organisaties/ Unfortunately I don't have time this month, please someone add a column. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers

I see two Sri Lankan editors who proudly proclaim they are anti Tamil Tigers are introducing the claim that they are designated by the EU. The EU list does not have them on, unless a source is provided this will be removed as a factual error. O Fenian (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to remove my cited edits as "vandalism", I will report you to WP:ANI. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Do it right now if you dare. Considering you and another editor added information to suit your own opinion which was contradicted by the source cited in the article, I know who will come off worse. O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like [11] is the new official list, and the group seems included. By the way, the whole list of the European Union should be verified with this new list. Snowolfd4, if you had shown this reference first, the edit war would have been avoided. Peace Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice you were using a source from 2005 (seriously?) Plus, after I added a link to reference the new list, it was deleted anyway. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose this article be moved to List of organisations designated as terrorist, to bring it into line with [Category:Organizations designated as terrorist] (which replaced [Category:Designated terrorist organisations]: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_5#Category:Organizations_designated_as_terrorist). The current title could give the impression that these are terrorist organisations that just luckily happen to have been designated as such, rather than organisations that have been designated as terrorist. This latter avoids POV judgements as to whether or not these organisations are terrorist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nicolas1981 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know why there is no "move" option for this article? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, I wanted to move the page as discussed here, and ran into the same problem. I am using a custom Wikipedia skin so I thought it was because of that and moved on to other issues. Can an admin move the page? Thanks Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel Column

I have created an "Israel" at the top of the table because Israel has it's own list of designated terrorist organizations. I am having some difficulties adding the ticks and the boxes so if someone could do it or teach it to me that would be good. If you wont to teach it to me just go to User talk:Bouklyloo and post it there.--Bouklyloo (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bouklyloo, thanks for your contributions. As you might know, every tick here needs a very solid reference. Could you please give a link to the reference? Meanwhile, I reverted the unreferenced ticks and empty column. The table is not easy no edit, so if you prefer you can just list the organizations and references here on the talk page, and I will be glad to copy them into the table. Cheers, Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but if you can teach that would be better but anyway. Here is the reference to Israel listing Hamas as a terrorist organization: http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Pages/Hamas–sum.aspx you have to go threw a bit of the article until the word terrorist is actually written. Hezbollah as a terrorist organization according to Israel: http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Pages/Hamas–sum.aspx

I'll try to find a max more but if you could teach that would be great because thats one of the only things I don't know how to do, editing tables... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouklyloo (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge from History_of_terrorism#Table_of_Non-State_Groups_Accused_of_Terrorism

Except from some un-sourced information, which can be easily incorporated here if we see fit, that section is fully redundant with this article. --Cerejota (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The tables cover to entirely different areas, one deals with historic groups, and lists when they ceased attacks, famous incidents etc, this one deals with what groups considered terrorist by the UK, 4 former members of the British Empire and the EU Sherzo (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely a problem with this list. As I have mentioned before, having such a limited list constitutes original research. There is no reason to need multiple lists of different types for groups seen as terrorist. I even did an extensive proposal to change this.--Cerejota (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the table constitutes original research. Groups were not chosen for the list arbitrarily, but instead based on which groups were included in RS surveys of the history of terrorism.

Chaliand has chapters on the Zealots, Assassins, Narodnaya Volya, IRA, IMRO, FLN, EOKA, ETA, FLQ, PLO, RAF, Italian Red Brigade, Japanese Red Army, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Aum Shinrikyo.

Cronin has chapters on Narodnaya Volya, IRA, FLN, PLO, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Aum Shinrikyo.

Reich has chapters on such and such and so and so etc etc etc

And this is a very different table from that compilation list of which groups are included in which country's terrorism list. I believe that table doesn't include ANY past groups, such as the Zealots, Assassins, Narodnaya Volya, old IRA, RAF, Italian Red Brigade, Japanese Red Army etc etc etc.

Mcenroeucsb (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article will contain past organizations when we find documents proving that a particular regime considered them as terrorists. You're right that another article could contain a "list of organizations considered as terrorists by Chaliand, Cronin and a few others". The two lists serve two different purposes, they can not be merged. Just a thought about the second list: it will be hard to NPOVely define who are the "few others". Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

I think we could do better with several lists than just one. It makes readability much better, for example. Thus, I feel the article could be split per country/supercountry. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, Spectre. Ray^Talk 03:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make the article much less readable. The important thing is the list of organizations, so we should not repeat the items. What do you think the problem is right now? If you feel the table is too wide, put the flag over the organization's name, and replace the country names with their initial such as UK, RU, with an explanation of the initials above the table. Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

+

ASALA and JCAG

I have removed these again. There is no evidence they were legally designated a terrorist organisation in even one country, never mind the several being claimed. O Fenian (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ASALA was officially recognized in the US as a terrorist organization by US State Department: Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1997, US Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1995. Chippolona (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those say they were designated. Being called terrorist in a report is not the same thing. O Fenian (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with O Fenian. Organizations that are not in the US' official list of organizations designated as terrorists, probably don't deserve to figure here. Please more people read those sources and tell what you think. The informational pamphlet that Chippolona mentions [12] employs the word "terrorist" to describe a lot of people, and in particular: "Two terrorists from the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)". Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"no wikipedia page": good reason for removal?

Two organizations were removed from the article with a "no wikipedia page" summary (see diff) I think that any designated organization deserves to be listed in this article, regardless of whether they have a wikipedia article or not. To make a comparizon, it would not make sense to remove Deep Sky Blue from the list of X11 color names just because it does not happen to have its own Wikipedia article. Pleas anyone check and revert this edit. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving

Why is there no move tab for the article? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone at all know? Doesn't it strike you as strange? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I might find out? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is protected somehow. Not sure how to find out. As a last resort you could ask at the Village Pump. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

is taliban a terrorist organisation

Mughalnz (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The organization known in the US as the Taliban is listed as a terrorist organization by the US and Russia. But beware that taliban means different things in different places. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

List of terrorist organisation

46. UNITED LIBRATION FRONT OF ASAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.240.227 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)