Category talk:Organizations designated as terrorist

message: The US List is given here: U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
The EU list is given here: 
The US list has 42 members, the EU one 27.
From an quick look several Sikh groups are on the EU list which aren´t on the US list. 
Although there is clear overlap, it isn´t the same list by any means. AndrewRT 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU US Lists 

message: This list is quite useless as it aggregates several lists into one supposedly authoritative and deffinitive list. The various lists should be split into their own categories, or their own pages. 74.98.150.149 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. It's quite a new category. There has recently been a bit of controversy about some similar categories that have now been delated (see discussion above). Now that this is the only cat left, you're right we should start to expand the list and ensure good coverage. --AndrewRT 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category membership 

message: If the CIA is considered terrorist by the Cuban government, should it be added here?
What about Mossad?
--Error 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a clearly bias article... why should only "non-governmental" organisations be considered "terrorists"? Terrorist can be applied to governments as well. This article was created to peddle strongly bias view points Rm uk 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only non-state bodies should be added here, as explained in the intro. This is not to say that State terrorism is less important than other kinds of terrorism, just that they are very different phenomena and therefre are best kept separate. I did not create this ctegory to push a POV but rather to attempt to deal with a difficult subject in an NPOV manner. AndrewRT - Talk 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA

message: Is this a joke, or a vandalism? --HanzoHattori 09:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask User:Addhoc he added it. Looking at his contributions I guess itis meant in good faith. AndrewRT - Talk 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me? People's Republic of China? 

message: Whether a organization is a terrorist or not is based on UN, USA, EU, and PRC? What about CIA and Mossad that the USA supports? --Nielswik(talk) 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: State agencies. So they cannot be added. See state terrorism for the concept. Intangible 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct. The U.S. has designated the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution as a terrorist organization, and that is an integrated part of Iran's military. __meco (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the four?? 

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