| Revision as of 10:58, 2 December 2004 editJK the unwise (talk | contribs)3,629 edits →Vfd debate← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:58, 2 December 2004 edit undoJK the unwise (talk | contribs)3,629 editsm →Vfd debateNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| ::Because the vast majority of votes to keep were on the condition that the name was changed, but no agreement was made (as it very rarely is in these cases) as to what it should be renamed to. Now, there are two options at this point for the admin clearing away the old vfd debates: first is to leave it on vfd/old until agreement is reached, second is to move it to one of the suggested locations. The first option, in my experience, is the least useful because we then end up ith a meaningless vfd/old page, much like the one we have now that is so chockabloxck full of old debates you might as well do away with vfd altogether for all the use it does. The second option at least starts the ball rolling with regard to what the article should be called, it can always be moved again at a later date. -- ] | ] 18:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) | ::Because the vast majority of votes to keep were on the condition that the name was changed, but no agreement was made (as it very rarely is in these cases) as to what it should be renamed to. Now, there are two options at this point for the admin clearing away the old vfd debates: first is to leave it on vfd/old until agreement is reached, second is to move it to one of the suggested locations. The first option, in my experience, is the least useful because we then end up ith a meaningless vfd/old page, much like the one we have now that is so chockabloxck full of old debates you might as well do away with vfd altogether for all the use it does. The second option at least starts the ball rolling with regard to what the article should be called, it can always be moved again at a later date. -- ] | ] 18:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) | ||
| While I think the list may be controversial, calling it militant org's is a massive cop out. If there is a significant explanation that the list is controversial in the intro, then the list is not POV biased. The list is interesting precisly '''because''' the groups are alleged to be terrorist not militant! (Am I writing this in correct place, where exactly will the discussion now take place?) | While I think the list may be controversial, calling it militant org's is a massive cop out. If there is a significant explanation that the list is controversial in the intro, then the list is not POV biased. The list is interesting precisly '''because''' the groups are alleged to be terrorist not militant! (Am I writing this in correct place, where exactly will the discussion now take place?)--] 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) | ||
| == Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
Revision as of 10:58, 2 December 2004
Regarding "Earth Liberation Front - USA (extremist environmentalist) - avoids harming people or animals, but is considered by the FBI to be a terrorist group": the ELF claims credit for tree spiking, which is the equivalent to planting land mines in civilian places, so I think the "avoids harming people" is a bit of a stretch. I'm going to change it in 24 hours unless anyone has a compelling reason not to. 141.154.203.120
The main thing missing from this list is that there is no way to see if a group is active today or is something from history. Could we have a range of years after the name, for example? --Zero 01:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On the list as it currently stands, defunct groups are listed in italics. --GCarty 08:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Extreme Zionist Groups
Should Kach and the JDL be put with the pre-Israel Zionist terror groups (to put all Zionist groups together), or should they be classed as Jewish fundamentalists (and therefore put in the Religious terrorists section) or even as Zionist fascists (and therefore put in the Right-wing terrorists section)?
Category:Terrorist_organizations
What is the relationship betweent this page and Category:Terrorist organizations Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Religious groups
Why is the only religion Islam here? To name two, the KKK is certainly Christian and the JDL is definitely Jewish. If there are no objections within a few days, I'll redundantly add these groups (and others) to the religious section.
New Hindu Section Why is Tamil Tigers a Hindu group? They are a regional group based on ethnic lines not religious. There are muslims aswell as christians who are Tamil Tigers.
Also VHP is a religious group with many international chapters right-wing maybe but certainly not terrorist. Shiv Sena is a legitimate Maharashtrian Indian political party representing regional Marathi identity. Please be careful who you try to portray as terrorist organisations. I think we should stick to official government lists.
- But which government list? Hizbullah is a terrorist group according to US, Israel, and UK, but it's not considered terrorist group by most other countries. Like Shiv Sena, Hizbullah is legitimate political party that won parliament seats in Lebanon. Moreover, many nationalist/reginal groups are listed under "Islamic" such as Lashkar-e-Toiba -- a group regionally involved in Kashmir dispute. OneGuy 16:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- But Shiv Sena members do not wrap themselves with bombs and go around killing people in any country.
ERM.. VHP, Shiv Sena(regional language based political party) are blatantly not terrorists. By all means if you think that groups should not be under Islamic then edit so... doesn't mean you can make potentially defamatory accusations against other orgs. --The industrialist 11:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Tamil Tigers should be under nationalist, not religous, as they have a secular ideology.--Victim Of Fate 11:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
RE: VHP, Shiv Sena... These groups do not indulge in millitancy, geurilla warfare, shootings, kidnappings, bombings etc etc. As one would expect from millitant organisations.
Nationalists & Right-Wing
There seems to be a lot of cross-over. Also, I'm not sure "fascist" really applies to the Zionist groups. —Ashley Y 10:02, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Does a group become terroist just because the USA and Israel say so
Many of the groups here are legitimate national liberation groups - For instance the PLO is recognised by the vast majority of countries and has observer status at the United Nations there are many more examples - Does wikipedia only respresent the USA point of view or is it an effort of the global community. Hisbullah was created when Isreal invaded Lebonon a action which cost 17000 lives of the Lebenese people. Isreal them for many years occupied a large buffer zone i Lebenon. UN has passed 11 resolutions againsed Isreal stronger than those paases against Saddam who was invaded. Many more UN resolutions would have been passed if the United States did not excercise its veto in the security council more than 123 times in favor of Israel and against the rest of the security council. To call some of the groups fighting against the brutal occupation of oppressed people terrorist is just following the line of the USA
- There is talk of changing this article to list of alleged terrorist groups (See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of terrorist groups). This article should aim for neutral point of view, but removing accused groups would not achieve that in my opinion. The accuser should be identified where possible and accused groups added from all sides of conflicts. The official US State Department list is at Foreign Terrorist Organizations and the official UK list is at Terrorism Act 2000. I am unaware of any other official lists.
- As for your introduction that was removed, I agree with its removal. It shows only one point of view, being heavily apologetic for listing Islamic groups. Also terrorism is defined in that article - we should not redefine it here, and Misplaced Pages should try to be internally consistent. Thanks for your contributions, I personally appreciate that you are trying to be constructive. --ChrisRuvolo 16:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vfd debate
For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:List of Militant Organizations/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why was this article moved to "List of Militant Organizations" when only 4 people in the discussion voted to move it there, out of 25 votes? --ChrisRuvolo 17:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Because the vast majority of votes to keep were on the condition that the name was changed, but no agreement was made (as it very rarely is in these cases) as to what it should be renamed to. Now, there are two options at this point for the admin clearing away the old vfd debates: first is to leave it on vfd/old until agreement is reached, second is to move it to one of the suggested locations. The first option, in my experience, is the least useful because we then end up ith a meaningless vfd/old page, much like the one we have now that is so chockabloxck full of old debates you might as well do away with vfd altogether for all the use it does. The second option at least starts the ball rolling with regard to what the article should be called, it can always be moved again at a later date. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While I think the list may be controversial, calling it militant org's is a massive cop out. If there is a significant explanation that the list is controversial in the intro, then the list is not POV biased. The list is interesting precisly because the groups are alleged to be terrorist not militant! (Am I writing this in correct place, where exactly will the discussion now take place?)--JK the unwise 10:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Introduction
I have changed the introduction because I think it is important that it is made very clear that the list does not claim to be objective/uncontrovercial. This should be esspecialy true if Misplaced Pages is seeking to be a world thing (not just a 'western' thing) as world opion is very dived.--JK the unwise 10:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)