Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description or an opinion. Designated terrorist organizations are non-governmental organizations that currently are designated by a law monopolist as a terrorist organization.

Law monopolist organizations for the purpose of this category are bodies where designation by that body would be expected to have a significant impact on the group, or people wishing to conduct business with the group.

• United Nations Security Council
• U.S. Government
• E.U. Council
• People's Republic of China

and other similar governmental and supra-governmental bodies.

Articles should only be included on this page is there is sufficient sourced verifiable information on their article page to demonstrate that they have been designated as a terrorist organization by a suitable body.

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person." Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at:

• Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is an international Islamic fundamentalist organization... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."
• Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Ireland, the US] and many other countries..."
• Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Arguments for describing an entity as terrorist

Arguments for:

• It's a legitimate word and dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments. For example, US army manual provides a brief definition saying that "terror is the calculated use of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear".
• The term does not reflect a bias towards any political orientation, as it refers to the methods and not to the opinions and beliefs shared by the terrorist group. For example, both left-wing groups trying to conduct revolution and right-wing racist groups trying to stop immigration may be termed terrorist.
• Given a consistent definition, and entire body of facts, it is possible to unambiguously decide whether certain methods are terrorist or not. A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which has been used in Wikipedia, might be illuminating.
• Unlike traditional media, Wikipedia can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerrilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.
• The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all.

Arguments against describing an organization as terrorist

• The word "Terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic. For example, even if everyone were to agree that Bill Clinton is evil, we can't make an article entitled "the evil Bill Clinton." Doing so is not encyclopedic.
• The word "terrorism" describes not just certain methods, but also a negative bias. The set of methods falling under terrorism is preferrably called "defence" and "counter terrorism" by the entities when describing their own actions. Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy has a definition very close to terrorist methods.
• There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
• Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist". If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents call them, we would have to include:

• Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban, Chechen rebels, CIA, forcible colonization of lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Iran, Iraq, Israel, Osama bin Laden, Palestine Liberation Organization, Resistance movement during World War II., the American Revolutionary Sons of Liberty, Syria, Tamil Tigers, Timothy McVeigh, United States.

These examples also suggest the standards for applying the label depend upon perspective and are not consistent.

See also

• Wikipedia: Words to avoid