Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category: Terrorist organizations

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization. 22:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First listing

Category:Terrorist organizations

The mere existence violates NPOV policies. Dori | Talk 20:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Delete; probably a good number of these would belong in a legitimate Category:Paramilitary organizations, but some would not. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:56, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete; replace with Category:Groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the U.S. Department of State. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
DeleteAlberuni 18:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DeleteJayjg 19:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete Terrapin 21:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep all "terrorist" categories if the presence of the word terrorist is the only criterion for deletion. Our task is not to reform the way people actually use their language. Smerdis of Tlön 21:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep--Josiah 23:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep--Viriditas 09:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Like obscenity, it's hard to define, but as (Mencken, was it?) said, I know it when I see it! But mostly, my "keep" vote is based on the clear fact that the terrorists themselves speak of perpetrating terror: so if those against terrorism and those for terrorism both call it that, what's the point of smothering it in pablum-type language? — Bill 09:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - but attribute on individual pages who designated them "Terrorists" Alkivar 03:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - attribution of accusation/designation would be good though --ChrisRuvolo 16:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

also, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_terrorist_groups --ChrisRuvolo 16:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep - If you take NPOV in categorization to the extreme, do we delete Category:Criminals, Category:Art? Riddley 00:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Terrorism is well defined, and these categories are a natural extension. Nominations is part of extreme agenda-pushing and POV warring within WP. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Netoholic. Neutrality's idea, that we should allow the US State Department to be the determinant, is perverse. Finally, it's an interesting category. Let's keep it.jguk 00:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. Obviously POV title. (Would you like "Category:Jewish terrorist organizations"?) HistoryBuffEr 03:02, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

I'm Jewish and I wouldnt see a problem with that, as long as the person who LABELLED it a terrorist organization is mentioned. Alkivar 03:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Sarge Baldy 15:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Tired of those not willing to call terrorism by what it is. They're purposely targetting children and we're mincing words so not to offend them. Jewbacca 10:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, why do people have trouble with these monsters, they do exist. IZAK 10:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. There are many organizations that can clearly be defined as terrorists. Since there are many, a category to group them is totally appropriate.--AAAAA 12:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Changing terrorist organizations in other terms is Newspeak with respect to the victims of their actions. Also, this category provides important information.Gidonb 13:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. keep the whitewash in the bucket not on the pages at Wikipedia. Lance6Wins 13:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Obviously POV title unless all these organisations clearly refer to themselves as terrorists. --Axon 14:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete - The term terrorism is not at all well-defined. It might arguably be possible to determine that an individual meets any reasonable criterion as a terrorist, but for a group it will be nearly impossible. The fact that state actors are excluded is blatantly un-NPOV. I don't think this category can be rehabilitated to facilitate NPOV. - Nat Kraus e 14:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "Terrorist" is never a self-appellation. Therefore the term is always POV. Despite arguments to the contrary, the criteria for defining terrorism are also always POV. We are drawn into this controversy only because national leaders and pundits have been able to project the term as a form of argument in itself. POV. It is a clever idea to define the adversary's violence as "terrorism", but one's own violence as "collateral damage". But it is hardly NPOV. As one seeks to exclude oneself from the category of evil-doer that is being prepared for ones adversaries, the definitions always become strained. Terrorism is not an ideology. Rather it is an interpretation of a tactic. Any attempt to define it objectively will be unsatisfactory to one side or the other in a conflict -- the very definition of Point of View. It can be objective to list organizations that have been declared to be "terrorists" by one side or the other, but there must be an attribution or who made the declaration. But to stand at the side of a conflict and simply present one side's declarations as objective truth, is very much to take a Point of View. John Tinker 21:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An excellent discussion of the issues. Thanks and congratulations. Shorne 12:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "Terrorist" non self-appelation (previous comment). Nice insight, I couldn't have said it better.--Hooperbloob 02:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - POV problem as superbly described by John Tinker, however I can see the problem now: Some terrorist categories will be deleted for NPOV and others not, which would make the discussion even more obscene. I think there should be an overall vote on the use of the word "terrorist" as opposed to the individual plucking of the groups. Why are we each voting 10 times when we are saying one thing that applies ten times? Tarek 07:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete the category. There's no place for POV-laden lists of "terrorists", and I seriously doubt whether any of these organisations would accept the allegation of "terrorism". Shorne 12:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. JamesMLane 22:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Second listing

Category: Terrorist organizations

Is redundant with Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Terrorist is value-laden politicized term not suitable for Wikipedia category. Violates NPOV policies, is vague and undefined. The person or authority attributing the title of terrorist should be identified. Alberuni 18:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Already listed; see Oct. 24 Jayjg 18:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - Very clever - so by definition there cannot be any American terrorist organisations. And that (together with the description of 'foreign' as meaning 'not US') is meant to be NPOV? Maybe I'll work it all out one day:) jguk 23:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep the category. However, the article Foreign Terrorist Organizations ought to be renamed and/or merged with another article.--Josiah 14:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete the category. There's no place for POV-laden lists of "terrorists", and I seriously doubt whether any of these organisations would accept the allegation of "terrorism". Shorne 12:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. JamesMLane 22:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Third listing

Category:Terrorist organizations

Current Vote Totals: 26 Delete, 5 Keep (as of Mar 11 21:00 UTC)

This is the third nomination for this category. Previous discussion is here. The WP definition of terrorism is the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal., which appears to include every war or conflict ever. <sarcasm> Strangely, every government page isn't in the category.</sarcasm> I'm sick of removing this category when people stick in on the rebel group articles that I work on. It tells you nothing besides that somebody dislikes them and is about as useful as Category:People who suck. I would have no problem with Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by X government, Category:Organizations referred to the ICC or to an ICT or even Category:Organizations that define themselves as terrorist, but this category is a big "Let's start an edit war!" sign. - — Banyan Tree 21:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A perfect example of the problem with this category is that it has been applied to the Mau Mau, who killed 32 white settlers and about 2,000 Kikuyu, but not to any white group active in Kenya at that time, even though altogether they killed 10 times as many. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Too hard to define terrorism... inherently POV. – flamurai (t) 21:55, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, inherently POV. -Sean Curtin 23:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, bigtime POV.--Hooperbloob 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete, same reasons as everyone else above. Ngb 23:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Will this delete all the sub-categories as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Last three votes were to keep. Why are we re-nominating a category that failed the vote last time? (it was 14-14 if I counted right.) --ssd 23:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I imagine it's because a fair number of Wikipedians (me included) believes it goes in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's values of NPOV. It would be the same if it were 'Category: Freedom fighters'. --Ngb 10:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How long before someone decides to move United States Government into this category? Inherently POV, delete. Grutness|^hello?

00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Courtland 00:24, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Keep. Just like the past three times. Lokifer 01:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a useful category. - SimonP 03:54, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Maurreen 09:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, category will never be NPOV. All "Terrorist" organisations are categorisable as other means.
Delete. Absurd to assume this could possibly be NPOV. zoney ♣ talk 22:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Or maybe keep, but then all organisations that fit the definition of terrorist should be put in that category. And the U.S. unfortunately fits the definition. Eric B. and Rakim 14:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- See my explaination below: nations can't count as being terrorist organizations by the more appropriate definition.

Your "more appropriate definition" is not the WP definition. See below. - Banyan Tree 15:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Perjorative and inherently POV. Kaibabsquirrel 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, too POV for my taste. Radiant! 21:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV. Seems like a good way to troll ourselves, and nothing more. A D Monroe III 04:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing my duplicated vote; I thought this one was lost in a IE crash. (Oops.) See my vote with Category:Irregular military below. --A D Monroe III 03:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Inherently POV. Even the definition of terrorism itself is disputed. The idea seems to be around that just because certain opinions might be enlightened or broadly held (such as the opinion that group x, y or z is terrorist) that somehow the usual rules of NPOV don't apply. We can, of course, create a category for "guerrilla organisations" or something like that. Iota 01:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ncik
Keep First, the correct definition of terrorism should include "by non-government organizations." That is, governments, by definition, are not themselves terrorist groups. (This doesn't work well when dealing with State Terrorism, which is separate.) I acknowlege that under the "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," but when a NGO engages in terroristic tactics, then regardless of who's side they are on, they should be appropriately labelled. There are organizations traditionally viewed as terroristic that belong.

The actual WP statement is "Acts of terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups, or states". The fact you disagree with the WP article so much that you are using a wholly imaginary definition just supports the arguments that it is inherently POV. - Banyan Tree 15:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please use "~~~~" to sign your vote. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The name gives a single view of what a group's goals are, with no qualification or ability to note conflicting views. It can only lead to edit wars and worse. Maybe if the title didn't include goals, such as Category:Irregular military? --A D Monroe III 18:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Terrorist is way too disputed/pejorative term. --Jyril 20:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Way too POV. What I consider a "terrorist", someone else may consider a "freedom fighter". So unless we want something like, Category:Non-governmental military organizations that use unconventional war tactics, I think we're going to have a difficult time coming up with a nuetral term to use. --Azkar 20:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. -Kbdank71 18:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This category was not properly tagged when listed. Therefore, please allow an additional 7 days before closing. RedWolf 00:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If people agree with Iota that something should replace the category, I note that we already have U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. That article could, I suppose, be the basis of a category. A category of "Organizations designated as terrorist by the U.S. government" would be NPOV because objective. (Whether or not the U.S. follows objective standards in making its list -- and I'd be astounded if it did -- it's objective on our part to report that a group is on the list.) There could be a similar category for any other entity that identifies organizations (or governments!) that it considers terrorist, and promulgates a list in a form that we can verify (again, verify who's on the list, not whether they belong on it). By the way, I'm not updating the tally to reflect my vote because I don't understand the current tally. I don't see five "keep" votes, even after I restored what the anon removed. Maybe I missed a removal. JamesMLane 12:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is obviously not working. (However, some of the subcategories have not been tagged for deletion. Were they intended to be included? They should be, if we decide that the name is inherently POV. I am afraid, however, that if we nominate them separately we'll just confuse the issue enormously.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, together with subcategories. Filiocht 16:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently POV. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV RustyCale 22:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, moving appropriate entries to Category:Irregular military. -Willmcw 22:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

A replacement category

Move to Category:Irregular military

Votes for replacement cat:

Non-governmental paramilitary groups (2): Iota, Jmabel
Irregular military (4): AD Monroe III, Courtland, WillMCW, KBDank71
Violent activism (1): Courtland(2)
Non-state irregular military (1): Iota(2)
Organizations using asymmetric warfare tactics (1): BanyanTree
Insurgents (1): anon
-Kbdank71 18:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope no one minds but I thought it might be useful to group peoples views on a replacement category together down here (Iota 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC):

Comment. Something really should be done to replace this category if it is to be deleted. I think Category:Non-governmental paramilitary groups (or Category:Non-governmental guerrilla organisations if we prefer) would capture most, if not all, of the groups currently categorised as "terrorist" organisations. Iota 19:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with that. "Paramilitary" would cover most of these. "Terrorist" is inherently judgemental. And I agree that we should be explicit about nongovernmental. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, both "non-govermental military organizations" and "unconventional war tactics" translate to "irregular military" in military terms. Moving to Category:Irregular military is sounding better all the time to me. I'll look at focusing the Irregular military article to this effect, and creating this more NPOV category. --A D Monroe III 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree. This sounds like a good idea; it also allows one to move a group from "irregular military" to "regular military" depending on the outcome of a particular armed struggle. I think this is a good NPOV choice. Courtland 23:59, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
- additional comment added late Since the Delete vote was solidified, I have looked at a couple of the articles with an eye toward re-categorization. In a couple cases I've looked at re-cat to Category:Activism seemed ok. "Activism" has a positive connotation but a neutral definition; it was this neutrality that led me to re-cat this way, and which helps to divert stigmatic interpretations based on the label applied. Now it would be appropriate, I think, to add a sub-cat to "Activism", something like Category:Violent activism which would include groups included right now in this terrorist category as well as some not included, such as environmentalists who drive spikes into trees, knowing that a broken chainsaw chain can possibly do severe bodily injury. Courtland 21:46, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
I don't know much about military terminology but according to their Wikipedia entries irregular military and paramilitary seem to have similar meanings, so presumably either would be ok. However their articles also seem to suggest that an irregular/paramiltary force can be raised and maintained by the state. So maybe Category:Non-state irregular military or Category:Non-state paramilitary group is necessary? It would have to be made clear that what we mean is de facto state, because rebels often declare a state that is not de facto. Iota 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support moving appropriate entries to Category:Irregular military. The state/non-state issue is too murky - what about rebel militias that are supported by an outside state? -Willmcw 22:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that this category and its subcategories should be deleted, but there also seems to be some interest in moving some of the contents into a replacement category as appropriate. I don't know enough about paramilitary/irregular military groups to do this. Assistance from someone better qualified would be appreciated. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Irregular military always, to my mind, refers to groups sponsored by and under the direction of a government. Paramilitary may refer to both government and non-government groups. Guerillas are almost always non-state, or sometimes the military of a weak nation when occupied by a stronger force. However, it is doubtful that al Qaeda, which I assume a lot of people are thinking about, would be considered a guerilla organization. Guerilla warfare is a subset of asymmetric warfare, which also includes tactics such as suicide bombings. People might want to consider something like Category:Organizations using asymmetric warfare tactics, which would be a subset of Category:Rebel groups and possibly Category:Warriors. (Something needs to be done with the tense of the verb though...) Obviously, it takes both a pair to have an asymmetric war, but the phrase "practitioner/user of the tactics of asymmetrical warfare", as far as I've seen, refers to the weaker of the two. It may be worth clarifying "non-state" as well. - Banyan Tree 06:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support Category:Irregular military. -Kbdank71 17:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Irregular military, which suggests some significant scale of military organisation and equipment, which not all terrorist groups have. Suggest: Category:Insurgents