Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 4

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)

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:

--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. 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)
 * ✅ Didit. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2008 (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. -- snowolf D4  (  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 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. -- snowolf D4  (  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 Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_5). 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
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 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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.129 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The DEA is also a terrorist.

http://libertarianempire.com/DEA.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholai420 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 July 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.56.1 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (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)

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)

Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and PETA are actually on the Watch List- their publications and anything involving support for these organizations are banned in the military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.136.66 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose watchlist? Can you please give us a link here? Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

United Nations: Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolidatedlist.htm#alqaedaent Does this qualify for a new column? Does the UN maintain other such lists? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no, according to the general information on the Committee. The "associated" people seem to be there for the purposes of implementing sanctions, and I think it is a bit 2+2=5 to say that people associated with terrorists are themselves automatically terrorists. At least certain entities on that part of the list are alleged to be involved in the financing of terrorism, for example I doubt the UN actually class the "AL-BARAKAAT BANK" (or "MEADOWBROOK INVESTMENTS LIMITED" of Bristol, England) as a terrorist organisation, but they do class them as being involved in the financing I assume. O Fenian (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right O Fenian Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2010 (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) 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)

Hi I think we should add these groups as a terrorist group recognized by the United Kingdom (I'm not sure if I can find a reference showing the US government or any government agrees). Here are some references to use:

1)British Ambassador to Israel condemned a plaque commemorating Irgun by calling them a terrorist group. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem protested, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated." They also protested against a plaque that claims that people died because the British ignored warning calls, saying it was untrue and "did not absolve those who planted the bomb." The plaque read "For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated. See: Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell,"British anger at terror celebration", The Times, July 20, 2006 2)A reference saying that Churchill called Irgun a terrorist group: Martin Gilbert. Churchill and the Jews. p. 270. a 3) An article out of the university of Haifa labeling Ertzl (aka Irgun) as a terrorist group: Arie Perliger and Leonard Weinberg, Jewish Self Defense and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions. "Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions", Vol. 4, No. 3, 100, (2003); http://web.archive.org/web/20080202073904/http://terrorismexperts.org/terrorism_research_roots1.htm 4) An article by the New York Times labeling it as a terror group in 1948: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E16F93D55147B93C4A81783D85F438485F9&scp=3&sq=terrorist+Irgun&st=p 5)Also for consistency sake the Wikipedia article on the King David Hotel bombing is VERY well backed up with research for the groups being labeled by the UK as terrorists. It seems to show that the British government sent a letter to Truman calling Irgun's attack on the King David Hotel an act of terrorism. Likewise the group is labeled a terrorist group by a member the British Parliament. Its also important to note that Israel labeled the group a terrorist organization once Israel became a state. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#British_reactionsAchamy (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not proof of *desgination* though, only proof of *description*. It isn't disputed by anyone that the British government were of the opinion that they were terrorists and indeed voiced that opinion, but there's never been any proof of designation because it never happened. This isn't "List of organisations described as terrorist" simply because virtually every, if not 100%, of violent non-state actors have been described as terrorists by their opponents, so the list would become meaningless. It would also have massive POV problems because it would be presenting organisations which are universally described as terrorist alongside organisations described as terrorist by one biased author or politican, and it would be presenting them on an equal footing. 2 lines of K  303  13:07, 15 July 2010 (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)


 * Added Jewish Defense League as a designated terrorist organization. Citation is from an FBI publication focusing on terrorism in 2000/2001. The specifically mention the group as a s, "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." If you read other literature they are basically an American offshoot of the terrorist Meir Kahane movement within Israel. Here is a web link to the publication: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm.  Achamy (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

EU / UK
Once again anglophone editors seem to have forgotten that the UK is part of the EU. The list taken as source for the EU position here was passed by the European Council which is a collective of relevant government ministers of all EU member states. Decision on almost all matters, - including foreign and security policy - require unanimity, which in turn means that the UK government agreed to the list. What this means is that all EU-designated terrorists are also deemed terrorists by the UK. On the other hand there may be terrorist organizations designated by the UK which for which there is no (common) EU policy. Travelbird (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Travelbird. This does not remove the need for two separate columns, right? Or do you have a better proposition? Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideas on the article in Russian
The Russian wikipedia has nice ideas, like using just a flag as column: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8 Also, we could separate the table into "currently listed" and "listed in the past" organizations, that would solve the ANC problem. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Provisional IRA
I have reverted the addition of this, since the information that was added was clearly incorrect. It was claimed they are US designated (untrue), EU designated (untrue), Canadian designated (untrue), and UK designated. The UK designation is covered by the umbrella "Irish Republican Army" link, see Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Archive 4. See the actual list, the term "Provisional IRA" or similar does not appear on it, an umbrella term is used as explained in the archive. O Fenian (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The PIRA is specifically designated as a terrorist group by the UK and is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Terrorism Act, 2000. To say that it is 'covered' by an umbrella term is nonsense. The fact that the group is designated in the USA, Ireland and the UK is mentioned in the main PIRA wikipedia article. I've no doubt you'll revert my edit once again, but I think people will see right through this as POV. Jamezcd (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, try reading your own source. "Irish Republican Army" is the term used. That is not "SPECIFICALLY mentioned". O Fenian (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the facts support O Fenian's position. Listing PIRA separately is needless repetition with no factual basis. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There is a reason why the Real IRA and Continuity IRA need to be listed separately, in that they are designated in places other than the UK, so it would be misleading if they UK column was blank on their entries. I will add that the assertion that "are proscribed in the UK, Ireland, the USA and the EU" is not backed up by sources. There is no such thing as a terrorist organisation in Ireland, at least as far as legislation is concerned. Similarly the claim that they are proscribed in the USA and the EU is not backed up by the lists of proscribed groups, which they are absent from. O Fenian (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help adding references
Asking for help, anyone who has the time, it would be greatly helpful: Each mark (in each cell) should have a reference. Right now, most of them don't, they implicitly rely on references at the bottom of the page. This is not maintainable. If you have time, for each unreferenced mark, search what is the valid reference, add it if you can find it, removed the mark if you can't find a reference. Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are only these countries on the table?
Lots of countries have designated terrorist organisations, China and Turkey for example yet they are not on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! We must add them. Please send us a link to China and Turkey's official lists, and we will add them. That would be really great! Thanks in advance! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I searched for both quickly on the Google and found this source for China, may be out of date but a clue for those hunting: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2003/china-031216-pla-daily01. I found that source on the wiki article Terrorism in the People's Republic of China.


 * I also did a bit of searching on the www.un.org site but had no luck finding their list. A UN list may be the most  representative of a global view and should be included if one can be found.  As far as Turkey's list, if it can be found that's fine but I don't think it should be as high a priority as the UN and Chinese lists - no offense to our Turkish friends.  Perhaps the categories should be limited to the top ten lists for space and updatability reasons.  Good work so far. Veriss (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol African national Congress?
Who in the right mind would list the ANC as a terrorist organisation apart from a White Supremacist which I would doubt to bed in the government. Also why are there a limited number of countries? I'm sure Sri-Lanka have something to say about Tamil Nationalists and the Chinese and other governments also list the East Turkestan Islamic movement as one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.74.132 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! We must add them. Please send us a link to China and Sri Lanka's official lists, and we will add them. That would be really great! Thanks in advance! About the ANC, I suggested creating a separate list for organizations that have been listed as terrorist in the past. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The African National Congress fits every discription of a terrorist organisation, they targeted civilians all the time, just ask the many dead South Africans, they not only attacked white South African Civillians but also Zulu Civilians seen to be supporting the IFPScottykira —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Some organisations removed
Hi. I came back to check on the additions and corrections I made recently to this article. From what I can tell there are now three organisations missing from the list. Can anyone tell me why? The organisations are: the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA and the Continuity Army Council (CIRA command organisation). I can't tell if anything else has been omitted but those ones were the obvious ones I noticed. The previous article simply had "IRA" listed, which isn't particularly helpful as there are many organisations which have called themselves "IRA". I'm thinking that something maybe got messed up with the subsequent edits and if nobody has any objections I'll stick the missing bits back in the next couple of days. --81.131.128.137 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I also changed "Ansar us-Sunna" to "Ansar al-Sunna", as I haven't been aware of the group being called "Ansar us-Sunna". --81.131.128.137 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The objections are in the section above. O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Continuity Army Council are listed on both sourced above, and ahve thus been reinserted.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not listing the same organisation twice. O Fenian (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does O Fienen have a "super-user" status or something, why does are his/her clear POV edits/deletes allowed on this topic? The situation is now that the IRA is not even listed as a terrorist group on the list except via splinter groups, despite being explicitly proscribed. It should be objectively cleared up - but currently it is clear any attempt go against O Fienen's wishes will be quickly vandalized. IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.32.209 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to go by SOURCES not synthesis, the sources list X and not Y, so lumping them in is the synthesis of wikipedia editors.Lihaas (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

China removed
I added a column for groups designated as terrorist orgaizations by China, however it was removed due to insufficient sourcing. This is unfortunate for two reasons. Firstly, the reference is available, clearly visible on the category page Category:People's Republic of China designated terrorist organizations, secondly because the table has been substantially edited since, thus reverting back is no longer an option. __meco (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Meco! Indeed, too bad about the formatting, that takes time to write, I feel your pain :-/ For the references, do you mean for instance this Washington Post article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900478.html We need an official document from the Chinese government. Anybody could please find that (I know it might not be easy) Nicolas1981 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do not need official documents. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and this would be met by the BBC article located where I indicated above. __meco (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with meco here.
 * However, instead of removal a requisite "better source" or "dubious" tag could go up calling for cites. One cant add cites without knowing its needed.Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The official document from the Chinese government is here --Wikimanno (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

page move
to List of designated terrorist organisations as the current is only fitting to 1 out of canada/ uk, eu, india, russia (not english speakign so its dubious).Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

globalise
and per the above china thing and further expansion, we can should start with a list of priority countries that need addition. china, iran, etc, etc. and then slowly workign on improvement throughout. lookign at the mofa pages of each country would be a start.
 * Althought this would also mean changing the table to fit in more countries. something either a collapsible section or from the various international reaction pages.Lihaas (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Formatting is a minor issue, the most important is to get more countries. The "organization" column could easily be reduced to half its width to make room for 6 more countries, and after that we can remove organizations' flags and shorten countries' names, and then split in two tables, each containing 10 countries or so. Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, format is a minor issue. I think most important is to determine the initial set of lists that we feel is adequate to represent a global view.


 * I suggest we start with the current seven: Australia, Canada, UK, US, India, Russia, EU and I nominate UN, China and either Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Turkey to add Middle Eastern perspective. Honestly, it may come down to which Middle Eastern country is the easiest to obtain a list for.  This is for starters, we can always consider  more as sources and interest develops. As an alleged state sponsor of terrorism I really don't think any list produced by Iran will be interesting at all.  Veriss (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to select, that would be POV. We must list any single country that maintains such a list, even if it is a micronation or Iran. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really biased at all. More a function of time plus effort divided by quantity of interested and motivated editors.  Keep it reasonable first.  In actually it will be limited by what we can actually find.  Then it will depend on who wants to keep it up to date.  Veriss (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with veriss and nicholas1981, one we would need to eventually list all thats possible, but for now the goal should be on incremental increases.
 * For noms, i would support UN (should lead), China, Iran (different perspective)Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

African National Congress
Presumably, as this page lists groups recognised by at least one of the countries in the table, each entry should have at least one green tick in their line, right? Why is the ANC included if all it has is a cross? What does the cross mean if it doesn't mean it is not recognised by the USA? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the source states the ANC was only designated a terrorist organisation by the now defunct apartheid government in SA... S.G.(GH) ping! 17:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the list intends to maintain formerly listed groups for historical reasons (with adequate notes), I think it should be removed. Veriss (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes thrice. the reverter didnt explain why he undertook said action even though i did in my edit summary.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They were designated a terrorist organisation by the USA, but it has since been (possibly) reverted. As this is not a list of currently designated terrorist organizations it clearly belongs. // Liftarn (talk)
 * If we keep it, I suggest creating a different article, or a second table, or at least separate the current table with two "special rows". These "special rows" would just contain a title, one "Currently designated organizations" and one "Organizations that have been designated in the past". The latter could be at the bottom of the table. The ANC row is a bit alone now, but if we found references for a few resistance groups who fought Nazi Germany that would start to make sense. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't have to go back that far in history. There are many much more recently that are formerly listed.  Veriss (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, let's find them! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think some Irish organisations have gone in and out of the lists so that might be worth digging into. As for making two lists I think the current system with two different icons is better since an organisation may be delisted by one, but still listed by another. // Liftarn (talk)
 * So we have consensus on taking out the old then it seems? Anyone should feel free to take it out. At anyrate, the "former" status can go on the page about the group,, unless a seperate article of "formerly designated..." were to be created.Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The consensus seem to keep formerly designated organisations as well as lonk as there are reliable sources for it. // Liftarn (talk)
 * actually 4 people here seem to want it either taken off, or taken off this list and put in another. As does SGGH, Veriss, nicholas1981 (who suggested a move) and me.Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Veriss wrote "Unless the list intends to maintain formerly listed groups for historical reasons (with adequate notes)" and we have adequate notes for it. Nicolas1981 wrote "if we found references for a few resistance groups who fought Nazi Germany that would start to make sense" so the consensus seem to be expansion rather than deletion. We could start digging trough Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist. // Liftarn (talk)
 * I agree with Liftarn. Unless the title is changed to "current". important and sourced groups should stay.  Just make use of the red X and a legend for making a new table is too time consuming and people using this table might very well just want it alphabetical for all past and current groups. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

JDL
Can JDL be listed as a terrorist organization? The FBI has designated them as a terrorist organization. 

Also, I'm not sure why organizations only here may be listed at this page? Several organizations, such as African National Congress, Kurdistan Freedom Falcons and Fatah are not mentioned here, yet are still listed.VR talk  15:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JDL is clearly described and sourced as a terrorist organization by the FBI in it's article and the source above so adding it to the list. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "In a 1986 study of domestic terrorism, the Department of Energy concluded: 'For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States....Since 1968, JDL operations have killed 7 persons and wounded at least 22. Thirty-nine percent of the targets were connected with the Soviet Union; 9 percent were Palestinian; 8 percent were Lebanese; 6 percent, Egyptian; 4 percent, French, Iranian, and Iraqi; 1 percent, Polish and German; and 23 percent were not connected with any states. Sixty-two percent of all JDL actions are directed against property; 30 percent against businesses; 4 percent against academics and academic institutions; and 2 percent against religious targets.' (Department of Energy, Terrorism in the United States and the Potential Threat to Nuclear Facilities, R-3351-DOE, January 1986, pp. 11-16)"
 * There is a broken source to a statement that they are an ex-terrorist group in the JDL article. If a proper source can be found then there can be a red X put behind their name as they are delisted but to remove them from the list is against the scope of this article for they were at one time one of the deadliest terrorist group on American soil.  97.85.163.245 (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a source at the University of Maryland Studies of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism a policy institute in conjunction with the Dept of Homeland Security calling JDL an inactive group so a red cross could go there. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That source shows they have not been designated, so they do not belong on this list. O Fenian (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is not the only source for this list so I would disagree. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * START list JDL as a Terrorist organization and so does the FBI. This list is not the list of only current designations on the main Homeland Security web page.  See the above discussions about the ANC.
 * I would point out that a long established editor and some others are in agreement with this policy: "The consensus seem to keep formerly designated organisations as well as lonk as there are reliable sources for it. // Liftarn (talk)"
 * START is a part of Homeland Security; please review the START at UMD credentials before making another knee-jerk revert. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No proof of DESIGNATION has been provided. Being described as that by the FBI is not the same as designation, the same with START. What START does provide is the "U.S. Government Designations" (note the word there - Designations), "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO): No" and "Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL): No". The FBI document is not a designation. O Fenian (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * START is a designation. Read their page on JDL. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Jewish Defense League (JDL) WAS AN ACTIVE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION based in the U.S. and active for roughly two decades. Shortly after its 1968 founding in New York City, the group would unleash a terrorist offensive in the United States. JDL was the second-most active group in the U.S. during its existence. Only the Puerto Rican separatist group, Armed Forces of National Liberation, was a larger terrorist threat at that time." 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * START are not a "national governments, former governments and inter-governmental organizations". O Fenian (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you not removing the ANC and several other listed organizations from the page, Why are you focused on keeping JDL out alone? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The ANC are a former designated organisation. The JDL are not a former, or current, designated organisation. Also I have no interest either for or against the JDL, only to keep out every organisation which is not verifiably a current or past designated organisation. That you are currently trying to add the JDL means we are currently dealing with them. O Fenian (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Define what you mean by 'former or current designated organization". You have access to all the past pages of the terrorist watch designation watch list?  Are you saying that all designations prior to the formation of the office of Homeland Security do not count?  So the FBI's calling the JDL the most deadly terrorist organization on American soil in the '70's doesn't meet your definition of designation?  This is humorous if not sad.  97.85.163.245 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is hardly my fault if you fail to understand the meaning of the word "designated" particularly as applied to this article, and how it differs from "described". You may wish to compare this with this then also view this. If you can prove that the office of Homeland Security have designated the JDL as anything then go right ahead, but all I see is a database that was previously independent being integrated in some vague way into the office of Homeland Security, there is zero proof that office of Homeland Security have performed any designation. O Fenian (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me try again to make you understand. The Office of Homeland Security is not the only departmental agency that designates terrorist organizations.  Homeland Security did not exist in 1970.  The designation of JDL would need to be from another US agency from that period.  This is the FBI, Dept of Energy and Dept of Treasury all have referred to the JDL as a terrorist organization. Here is some more history from the Middle East report.  Kach and Kohain Chai are JDL sister organizations in Israel and have tried to reform the JDL.  Now if you are going to stick with only Homeland Security metrics and ignore the information prior to it's founding then you are in for a lot of bickering on this article. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you cannot understand the difference between "refer" and "designate" this is going to be a long and incredibly pointless discussion. You might want to read up on the US State Department too, since you failed to mention it completely in your failed attempt to "educate" me, failed because I know considerably more than you about this already. O Fenian (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should I mention the obvious first and main choice? I was mentioning the other organizations that have designated terrorist groups.  We need other editors to take part because you are obviously the king of the designated terrorist watch list page.  Liftarn and other editors have disagreed with you on this point earlier and since they are absent ATM this will have to wait till they come and make their views heard.  Bye for now Oh King my King! (This is why there are few women Wikipedia editors.  This peacock tail waving B.S.) 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not content with repeatedly misrepresenting sources, you are now misrepresenting the position of Liftarn. Their position was that formerly designated organisations should be added to the list, which they are. However you are confusing the issue completely, in that the JDL are not, and never have been (in the absence of sources that say otherwise) designated. Someone describing them as "terrorist" in an FBI report is not "designation", as I have repeatedly tried and failed to make you understand. O Fenian (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave sources but you won't accept the Dept of Energy, the Middle East Report, START (a division of Homeland Security studies) or the FBI. I can not produce a source for the Homeland Security designation list that did not exist during JDL's period of highest intensity.  It's pretty clear above that you were in the minority on what should constitute the criterion for inclusion in this article.  97.85.163.245 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lastly, although the planned bombing by members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) on December 11, 2001 is designated as a prevention of a single act of terrorism, the planned incidents have been designated as one terrorist incident against a Civilian/Commercial target and one terrorist incident against a Government target for the purposes of this graph." 97.85.163.245 (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And that proves the JDL are designated how exactly? Also stop beating the START dead horse, since I have already demonstrated the same virtually identical page existed when MIPT was a totally independent database. I asked you to provide proof that Homeland Security had performed a designation subsequent to the merge of that database, you have failed to do so. You have not provided a single source that proves the JDL were designated, and why? Perhaps because they have never been designated! If you come up with a source that clearly and unambiguously proves that the JDL were designated (not described, referred or any other word like that) this discussion can progress, but your failure to listen is now disruptive and I will not indulge your disruption any further. O Fenian (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue here is what criterion is used to include an organization from before the foundation of the Homeland Security organization which is your only criterion. START is a part of Homeland Security so your ignoring it is violation of good faith editing.  I am not the only editor here that has questioned the exclusion of the JDL.  It is the other organization founded by Meir Kahane (of Kahane Chai which is in the list).  You can ignore me and I would welcome it.  I will work with other editors. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

red X's
These are to designate that the organization is now inactive? There is no legend describing table symbols.97.85.163.245 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The complete current list from the US
This is the complete list of currently active terrorist organizations and aliases according to the US governments. It is quite long. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How to use this list If you find a name of a terrorist organization in your readings that isn't in this article you open this list and do a 'find' for the name. You will likely see that that it is an alias for a known organization. For example: The Jewish Legion is not a new organization but simply an alias for Kaoch. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that is the "ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SPECIALLY DESIGNATED NATIONALS AND BLOCKED PERSONS" as it says right at the top. It includes all sorts of things like banks, charities, companies and so on, basically anyone suspected of links to terrorism however tangential. Or are you suggesting that, picking an entry at random, the "AL RA'Y SATELLITE TELEVISION STATION" are an "active terrorist organization"? O Fenian (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect you are. It clearly states on the US Dept of State "Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations

Country Reports on Terrorism Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism April 30, 2007

Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) aliases cited are consistent with and drawn from the Specially Designated Nationals list maintained by the Department of Treasury. The full list can be found at the following website: http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt "


 * So, since they appear on the list, you are stating that the "AL RA'Y SATELLITE TELEVISION STATION" are an "active terrorist organization"? You appear to have not even read the text you just pasted, since it says the "aliases" come from the list, nothing more nothing less. O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am stating that the country reports page is not complete. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For example The New Kach Movement is not in the short list but is an alias for Kaoch. There are many aliases for these organizations, like for example The Jewish League, Jewish Legion and "'The Jewish Idea'' for Kaoch. Morphing the identities is a matter of course for terrorist organizations. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Answer the question. O Fenian (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And to prove I do know considerably more than you (and a quick Google search would have told you this) the "Specially Designated Nationals" list is not a list of designated terrorist organisations. It is a list of "individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific". O Fenian (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure for some specific reason that you need to regular prove you know more or are better than other men. The list contains aliases for entire groups and not just specific individuals but you will gloss over that point just to make yourself appear superior. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

FARC
why isn't this on the list? it has been recognized as an organized terrorist group by several countries. thank you 93.34.49.92 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What criterion?
Prior to the formation of Homeland Security the FBI, State Department, CIA and even the Department of Energy designated terror groups. What criterion is this page using to decide inclusion of groups prior to 2001? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the State Department, where is your proof that any of those organisations designated any organisations? I have explained designated to you many times, your constant failure to understand notwithstanding. O Fenian (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually you have never given a legal definition of to designate terror groups. The article doesn't state that the actual word designate is required. The word accused or described or some other synonym could be used; it is the organization that matters and they must fall in the category "national governments, former governments and inter-governmental organizations". The FBI is an branch of the Federal Government. The GTD (Global Terrorism Database) is where the above links were pulled on JDL and is supported by Homeland Security. The Database is listed on their digital library The Global Terrorism Database You wanted proof that DHS.gov supported the open source declassified old MIPT database and here it is straight from the dhs.gov website. What more support for the backing of dhs.gov for the GDT do you want? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Still flogging the START/GTD dead horse are you? Boring.. O Fenian (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Caucasus Emirate/Doku Umarov
I have removed the claim that the United States government have designated the Caucasus Emirate as a terrorist organisation, sourced by this. Presidential Executive Order 13224 allows for the designation of individuals or organisations, and on this case according to the list the designation is to Doku Umarov not the Caucasus Emirate. O Fenian (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kameradschaft Süd
What is about Kameradschaft Süd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.180.215 (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

moving unsourced items to talk
The sourcing tag has been on the article for 10 months, and I see that there are still many unsourced items on the list. I will be copying them from the article to the talk page in hopes that people can find sourcing for them. I'll look in the obvious places for them, but I'll need help from others to get the items properly sourced. aprock (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Handling unsourced items
Reviewing the list of unsourced items, some of the seem like they should be easy to find sourcing for. The difficult part is that the list is designated terrorist groups, not just groups that have been called terrorists. As such, even though many of the items of the list have their own article, finding the source which designates them as terrorists may be difficult. For the time being, I suggest removing the red link list entries from the main article. They can certainly be restored if we can find appropriate sourcing. aprock (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Organizations and sources
Al-Aqsa Foundation: Designated terrorist org. in the US. See page 6. Couldn't find any source for EU.TMCk (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: Designated terrorist org. in the US. See page 28.TMCk (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Al-Haramain Foundation: Designated terrorist org. in the US. See page 30.TMCk (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Communist Party of the Philippines akaNew People's Army: Designated terrorist org. in the US. See page 49.TMCk (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the sourcing to the article. I'll get to it sooner or later if you don't have time. aprock (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll let you handle this. I have my problems with editing tables... TMCk (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

LRA?
This article is blatantly missing the LRA from this list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.53.20 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the LRA on the United States government's official list? I don't see it: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm Somehow BBC is saying at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17295078 that "The LRA is listed by the US as a terrorist organisation", anybody knows what is their source for affirming this? Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)