Category talk:Organizations designated as terrorist

nonsensical category

I think that this is a nonsensical category. We already have a category for organizations accused of terrorism. The name of this category suggests that it has more weight, but if you consider the US and the UK as authorities then that's just utter nonsensical. Under international law the US and the UK don't have more rights than, say, Uganda. Count Iblis 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Organisations designated terrorist by the laws of Uganda should also be in here. I think this catagory is about those groups who are Named in the Laws of the US, UN, EU or Uganda (and hence the AU). This is ment to be a step up from just an accusation by some-one, to active censure by national and supra-nation laws.Hypnosadist 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By way of explanation this new cat has been created following a discussion on Categories for deletion about Organizations accused of terrorism. I felt this cat is more factual and less vulnerable to POV debates.

The US, UN, EU etc. have real power to make a difference by designating orgs as terrorist, hence why the fact that they are included in such a list becomes relevant. I am not aware that Uganda has such a list. If they do, and their designation of an org as terrorist has a sig impact on that org then by all means include those orgs here. Thats why I said "and other similar governmental and supra-governmental bodies"

Lets see how this develops. AndrewRT 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it could lead to more POV debates. By including both the UNSC and the US you don't distinguish between e.g. Al Qa'ida and Hezbollah. Al Qa'ida members can be arrested anywhere on Earth, but Hezbollah members not. In fact if you are a member of Hezbollah you can travel to the UK and you won't be arrested merely because you are a Hezbollah member. You would have to break the law in the UK itself...

By giving the listing under a terrorism category more legitimacy, you create a POV problem that can only be addressed in case of orgs. like Hezbollah by creating yet another category of, say, "legitimate militant organizations". There are countries that do not regard Hezbollah as a terror organization and they actively support this group. Whether we like this or not is besides the point. What matters is that this dispute exists and wikipedia should reflect this.

So, it will then be necessary to create such a category that would contain organizations that are regarded by one or more countries as "legitimate" provided that organization hasn't been outlawed by the UNSC (in which case that country would be in violation of a UNSC reslution)Count Iblis 13:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue if in the category page we state for each group who the are designated by. "legitimate" now thats POV as it seems to indicate that all they activities of that group are acceptable. The fact that say Hezbollah is backed by the syrian government can just be added to the category infortmation, as this would be more encyclopedic, showing both (or more)POV's on some groups.Hypnosadist 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But then it would be better to make a few subcategories. E.g. you could make category for the US-list, the EU-list and the UNSC. Organizations supported by other countries would have to (also) appear on some other list of militant organizations. E.g. it used to be the case until a few years ago that the US didn't regard Casmiri freedom fighters allied to Pakistan as terror organizations, while India, of course, did. And there are also militant organizations that are not regarded as terror organizations by any country. Count Iblis 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Making subcategories does not make sense. This is foremost a category that separates designated from non-designated organizations. It does not really 'care' about who is doing the designations. Most mentioned organizations will be cross-listed on various national and international list anyhow. Although that information might be interesting, I suggest it to be added in say List of terrorist organizations, where more 'space' is available, and were differentiation on 'ideology' is also more aptly possible. Intangible 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This will cause various POV problems. E.g. Falun Gong is considered a terrorist organization by China. The existence of this category then requires one to add Falung Gong to this category. Not doing so would mean that the category is used in a POV way.

The US list is very comprehensive and includes the terror orgs. on the lists of the EU, Australia and Japan. The title "Designated by the US" would thus be sufficient and would prevent POV problems. Count Iblis 12:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should an organization listed on the EU list and not on the US list be barred from this category? Intangible 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a list of such organizations? I don't think there are many. You could just create a few categories, "Designated by US", "designated by EU" etc. And then you only put those organizatins in the EU list that don't appear on the US list. You explain the logic of this on the category page. After 9/11 there is much more cooperation between EU, the US and other countries and the lists are largely overlapping. Alternatively, you could make a category "designated by US/EU", "designated by G8 countries", etc. Count Iblis 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

EU US Lists

The US List is given here: U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The EU list is given here: [1]

The US list has 42 members, the EU one 27.

From an quick look several Sikh groups are on the EU list which aren´t on the US list.

Although there is clear overlap, it isn´t the same list by any means. AndrewRT 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Category membership

This list is quite useless as it aggregates several lists into one supposedly authoritative and deffinitive list. The various lists should be split into their own categories, or their own pages. 74.98.150.149 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)AMH

I have noticed that a fair number of countries listed here U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations are not in this Category e.g. National Liberation Army (Colombia). I have just added Real IRA. If this category is to make sense, it's membership should be expanded. At the moment the membership criteria seems a little biased. Robneild 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's quite a new category. There has recently been a bit of controversy about some similar categories that have now been delated (see discussion above). Now that this is the only cat left, you're right we should start to expand the list and ensure good coverage. --AndrewRT 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA

If the CIA is considered terrorist by the Cuban government, should it be added here? What about Mossad? --Error 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a clearly bias article... why should only "non-governmental" organisations be considered "terrorists"? Terrorist can be applied to governments as well. This article was created to peddle strongly bias view points Rm uk 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only non-state bodies should be added here, as explained in the intro. This is not to say that State terrorism is less important than other kinds of terrorism, just that they are very different phenomena and therefre are best kept separate. I did not create this ctegory to push a POV but rather to attempt to deal with a difficult subject in an NPOV manner. AndrewRT - Talk 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? People's Republic of China?

Is this a joke, or a vandalism? --HanzoHattori 09:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask User:Addhoc he added it. Looking at his contributions I guess itis meant in good faith. AndrewRT - Talk 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are the four??

Whether a organization is a terrorist or not is based on UN, USA, EU, and PRC? What about CIA and Mossad that the USA supports? --Nielswik_(talk) 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

State agencies. So they cannot be added. See state terrorism for the concept. Intangible 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. The U.S. has designated the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution as a terrorist organization, and that is an integrated part of Iran's military. __meco (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Subcats and suggestion

The rational behind tracking who is accusing an orginaztion of terriorism is good. It is factual and has real world implications fo the orginaztions. In keeping with that I think we should create a subcategory for each orginazation who publishes a list of desiganated terriorist organazations. SO no organazation woudl be listed directly (and ambigibusly) here. We woudl have "Organazations designated as terriorist by the United States", "Organazations designated as terriorist by the PRC", etc. Some organzations would get mroe than one sub-category and that might be taken amiss by some, however as argumetns against these types of categories and lists go the term terriorist by itself is subjective. However there is a list of effects that being listed thus by the USA carries and it is diffrent from what happens if the UK lists you or China. It is that which is really worth documenting. Other tan being a lot harder to manage are there any objections to this sort of system? Dalf | Talk 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

What's the deal with "designated as"?

הראש (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)