Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of designated terrorist organizations


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

The result was   keep. If there are any sourcing issues with individual entries, this can be remedied through editing or, per WP:V, removal.  Sandstein  16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Criteria for inclusion are too susceptible to bias, and irreparably so. The concept of "designation" is relatively modern, and not used by many countries, so almost every organisation listed here has been listed by US, UK or Australia.

If we were to loosen the definition to reduce this bias, we'd start running into verifiability problems. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- -- Mark Chovain 00:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? This is consensus, not a vote; just saying "weak keep" with no reason has no weight. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- I found this list to be highly useful and the article itself does an excellent job at explaining its limitations and the concept of designation. In my opinion this is the only possible way to list terrorist organizations in an objective neutral way that isn't biased by wiipedia editors or a product of original research.Nrswanson (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- This is highly encyclopaedic. The neutrality dispute is valid but it's grounds for rewriting, not deletion.--S Marshall (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it can't be rewritten neutrally, unless we change the inclusion criteria. Can you see a way to rewrite it without neutrality problems? -- Mark Chovain 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand that concern. There's a possible case for re-naming the article, for example, "List of organisations designated as "terrorist" by western democracies," so as to be even clearer the opinion expressed is that of the specific countries concerned rather than an opinion of a Wikipedia editor, which I think is really important.  If there are equivalent lists or designations for other countries, those should also be linked to provide a counterpoint.
 * The result still won't be neutral, of course, but I'm absolutely convinced this article is inherently encyclopaedic, which I think should be an overriding consideration in afd debates. In other words, think this is one of the rare cases where it's appropriate to counter the neutrality argument with WP:IAR.--S Marshall (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article defines its terms and is well sourced as well as neutral in tone. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that the article should add what agency has listed each organization, without that information, it is hard to verify that the groups belong in this article.Advocate (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, very useful. Advocate makes a good point however. Mathmo Talk 04:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this category cannot respect WP:NPOV for the reason given by the nominator. But I see also two issues : 1. It is not easy to find an alternative solution that would be better for NPoV ; 2. The bias associated with this category is currently extremelly sensitive and should require much energy; other tasks are more urgent. Ceedjee (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One alternative solution that would be better for NPoV would be to not try to list terrorist organizations at all. Or, we could create a list called "U.S. Department of State List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations," and simply reproduce their list, with clear attribution... no need for original research, no headache trying to sort out what should and should not be listed and why, no Point of View whatsoever, just let the reader know whom the U.S. seems to think is a terrorist... which is practically what this list is now, anyway.zadignose (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Listed groups are unquestionably terrorist in nature and action.  Frotz (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But eg, Hamas is an acronym of Ḥarakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya which means "Islamic Resistance Movement". My personal and political mind is that the targeted killings of its leaders were completely legitimate. But I am 100% sure this is not the mind of more than 90% of Arab and Muslim population. There are numerous such examples in that list. The solution of using the word designated was not one 100% respecting WP:NPoV. It is a little bit hypocrisy. Let's require NPoV for the others, not for us; let's require same level of democracy as we have for the other but no more democracy for us... Being pragmatical and realist in real life doesn't prevent intellectual honnesty... Ceedjee (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even African National Congress, which was listed for quite some time (and met the inclusion criteria)? -- Mark Chovain 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good example : ANC is also Winnie Madikizela-Mandela but we prefer talking about Nelson. Ceedjee (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No problem with us reporting the fact that some governments have designated certain orgs in this way. Valenciano (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Designated" is a very vague and unprecise term. What if Al-Qaeda "designates" the US government a terrorist organization? Should we include that to? The way I see it, this article only list organizations viewed as terrorist by western governments. Why not make it more accurate by making seperate articles such as "List of organizations regarded as terrorist by the US", and so forth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.132 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a very useful and necessary article, and has proved invaluable to me; how else am I (and others) to find a somewhat comprehensive list of organisations designated as "terrorists". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
 *  Rename or delete Strong delete - The information is valuable, but nonetheless biased. It's only useful in terms of knowing what some particular countries or organizations have designated as terrorists. We could split and rename it to something like "List of designated terrorist organizations by.." followed by credible organizations. Naurmacil (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact remains that terrorist is a subjective, pejorative term. There is simply NO way this article can be neutral, because the designation of terrorist organizations is biased itself. And I removed my earlier call for rename because we could easily find these lists on official websites. They have no encyclopedic value at all. Naurmacil (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rework, rename: To be bland and clear, the article needs to have "UN designated terrorist organizations," "EU designated," "US designated," "NATO designated," etc.  Putting in that slippery "have been designated" is asking for trouble, and dividing the organizations according to aims is, again, the insertion of POV.  There are troubles here, but it is possible to do it properly, even if it will be nigh unto impossible to keep it proper.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I really like this suggestion. While it doesn't fix the bias, it makes it much clearer who is claiming what -- Mark Chovain 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Rework: I was banned for 24 hours by an idiot who didn't know that there were Armenian terrorist organizations when I had edited this page it was reverted. This page needs rework, so many terrorist organizations like the Nationalist Armenian Terrorist organizations like ASALA, JCAG, Armenian Revolutionary Federation need to be included. If you kill the innocent you're a terrorist, I'm sick of debating people about obvious terrorists. There are so many nationalists (hiding) in Wikipedia its absurd. Fix this article, rework it, and add ALL terrorist organizations, even if it's an "iffy" organization. Rebels turn into terrorists as soon as they kill civilians, and I'm sick of arguing about it. &mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Rework. The current title is the best we can achieve in neutrality and compromise. However, the list won't be totally NPOV unless it is clearly mentioned who is designating each organization by terrorist. As for the sections, it doesn't matter whether they are organized by nationality, ideology, or designation, we just have to be careful with entries that cross multiple sections. I liked the proposal in Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations. Eklipse (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I can't believe there's so much support to keep this!  If there exists a United Nations List of Terrorist Organizations, then go ahead and create the article United Nations List of Terrorist Organizations.  Criteria for inclusion will be uncontestable, we would just report on a list that SOMEONE OTHER THAN OURSELVES RESEARCHED.  But THIS union of lists and groups "designated" by... someone... to be terrorist organizations, consititutes Original Research.  It is bound to be the center of dispute and controversy forever.


 * We already see above that some supporters of this list would love to add "ALL terrorist organizations" including "iffy organizations," though that sounds pretty messy, and we're certain to see a dispute over virtually every entry added to the list.


 * As of now, we have a list with items like the Animal Liberation Front, though the Wikipedia article on the same indicates that this is not even an organization or group, and that no people have been killed by ALF actions... but of course they've been "designated." I don't give a damn about ALF in particular.  I just don't see what purpose this list serves, or how it can be defended.


 * Certainly if this list continues to be maintained, The World Uighur Youth Congress and the East Turkestan Information Centre will have to be added, as they have been "designated" terrorist groups by the Chinese Government... whether or not they ARE terrorist organizations will have to be deemed irrelevant to inclusion on the list.


 * The Iranian Parliament has designated the U.S. Army and the C.I.A. as terrorist organizations, so I'm pretty sure they'll have to be added too.


 * Meanwhile, should UNICEF be listed if it can be demonstrated that they have partnered with an organization (the International Islamic Relief Organization) which the U.N. itself has designated as funding terrorism?


 * Well... maybe not. Maybe we can just avoid this whole mess by deleting the list. zadignose (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasons cited supra. Add by whom they are designated. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - sourced list with clear inclusion criteria. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article defines its terms and is well sourced as well as neutral in tone.Nitraven (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not well sourced. Almost all of the citations are from MIPT, which is no longer online.  We're hoping that TKB will be able to replace them, but at the moment only about 10% of the entries are sourced. -- Mark Chovain 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This needs a bit of work and as Kittybrewster states I think we should include who have designated the groups included. Also I feel a good point was raised re the CIA and the U.S Army so criteria has to get tightened up. BigDunc  Talk 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I have changed my mind on this as I feel the arguments put forward by Zadignose are rather compelling and this article can never be WP:NPOV unless we use headings like List of Terrorist Organisations designated by USA or UK. BigDunc  Talk 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve by adding more orgs and more references. WP's job is to provide useful information to its readers, not hide it by eliminiating whatever some pushing POV editors do not want to let others see. These organizations exist as a fact and are terrorist.  The goal of WP is improvement, not mindless deletion, catering to the terrorists.  Be useful and help.  Hmains (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Err - I hope you're not suggesting that the nominator (me) hasn't been helping with the article. You might want to check the article's history before doing so.  Sure, we don't want mindless deletion (that's why we have AfD), but we also don't want mindless hyperbole suggesting those who feel this is never going to be NPOV to be "catering to the terrorists" -- Mark Chovain 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is exactly what's wrong with this article, precisely why it should be deleted. Multiple editors have clearly expressed that they believe the organizations should be listed because they ARE terrorists... this list becomes Wikipedia's assertion, not only that someone somewhere has claimed that they are all terrorists, but that they ARE terrorists.  This is very far from NPoV, and this compilation from multiple sources is Original Research.  If one country says an organization is terrorist, and another country says they're not, then presumably Wikipedia sides with those who say it IS?  Because it has been "designated" by someone.  And the suggestion that deleting an item, or deleting the list is somehow "catering to the terrorists" is frankly a horrifying accusation!  But certainly it's going to be hard to maintain any kind of editorial standards in the face of the emotional appeals that demand we "Ignore All Rules" to get out the FACT that whoever the U.S., or Eurpean Union, or perhaps China SAYS is a terrorist truly IS.zadignose (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This list is undoubtedly a very important one. It would be a gap in WP and shame for any reader not to find any kind of list related to this very current and controversial subject. Our job here at Wikipedia would be to present him with neutral, emotionless and verifiable information and data. There is a flaw in your logic. The list has been explicitly called designated in order to remove any doubt about WP not siding with anyone or not making claims of its own. The list aims to present which organizations have been designated (which is understood as designated by an external party) as terrorists, instead of which organizations are terrorists (which might be understood as claims by WP, although I strongly disagree: The neutrality of any WP article should be an inherent assumption by the reader) (WP:SUBSTANTIATE).


 * NPOV and V also implies precise and neutral criteria of inclusion. If an editor believe the organizations should be listed because they ARE terrorists, unless these organizations fits perfectly the criteria of inclusion, the intents of the editor are irrelevant. So the bulk of discussion would be on deciding on the precise criteria for inclusion. I see that the lead presents clearly some criteria which could be modified (for example to exclude any claim or metaphor used during some speech) Therefore, I don't see the problem, any entry will make it if it conforms to these criteria and will be deleted if it doesn't without "catering for the terrorists" (it is a horrifying accusation).


 * List of countries faced the same issue because it was so unmaintable and any user could assert a claim of his own. However, giving its precise criteria of inclusion (read the lead and the first paragraph) and the note at the begginning of the list, it seemed to have survived. Eklipse (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You say the list is undoubtedly important, but I doubt its importance. Rather than a list, how about an article?  We already HAVE an article titled U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations which lists the majority of items on THIS list.  But that article has the most NPoV possible inclusion criterion... we don't make the list, we just report what the U.S. Department of State has on THEIR list.  Similar articles can be written for other lists, such as "Groups Designated as Terrorist by the Chinese Government," and so on.  But THIS list is a wikipedia produced sythesis of lists, a work of original research, with a nebulously defined inclusion criterion... and LISTS aren't nearly as valuable as complete ARTICLES.  This is superfluous, contentious, and easily lends itself to the interpretation that the listed groups ARE terrorist... an interpretation that not only the general public, but many concerned editors are quite quick to embrace.


 * Let's face the reality that, if this were 1947 we would be putting together a list called "Designated Subversive Organizations," and a few years later in the McCarthy Era we would be listing "Designated Communists." And then we'd be debating whether to include "The Boys Club Of America." Or did Katzenbach really say "Du Bois Club?" zadignose (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Inclusion in such a list irrevocably NPOV - either the inclusion criteria themselves will be POV - e.g. requiring "designation" on a list biases POV to those who systematically make such lists, or too open to dispute - what is a "reliable source" for determining inclusion? Because of the pejorative nature of the term, listing (or not) here is too important an issue to suffer such problems. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Having some amount of POV in an article is not a valid reason for deletion. While working with various terrorism-related subjects, I found this list very useful.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator provided a very clear rationale for deletion, which is right at the top of this discussion. Some of us have elaborated in the discussion that followed.  How is "Criteria for inclusion are too susceptible to bias, and irreparably so" not a clear rationale?  That's just a part of what's been said, but it speaks pretty directly to the problem. zadignose (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


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