Talk:List of designated terrorist groups

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CWood9615.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Irish Republican Army

The IRA is a designated terrorist organisation in the UK. It is also an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland under counter-terrorism laws, therefore the IRA is also considered as a terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland (https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism) also (https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/sro/162/made/en/print). On the Provisional Irish Republican Army page certain editors are reverting edits when other editors have described the PIRA as a terrorist organisation in the Republic of Ireland. Respectively, they appear to be showing POV and attempting to portray a favourable light on that organisation. I just wanted to get some other editor's thoughts on this from this page (as the editors here are hopefully less POV on the IRA topic!) - effectively is it objectively correct to state that the IRA is an unlawful terrorist organisation in the ROI? KR --TheSquareMile (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This assertion is at best original research and arguably an NPOV violation. However regardless of the facts, this is a list page and meant to include specific named organization-the "IRA" as is intended by the legislation you quoted is not an organization but a reference to a movement at large. The link to the IRA refers to a group that it is an uncontested fact has not existed in over 50 years and it may be best be removed from this list entirely. OgamD218 (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, how is this original research? The UK sources use the exact same foundation i.e. the official government publications, legislation and websites. I provided a link to (i) the Suppression Order outlawing the IRA, and (ii) a link the the Republic of Ireland Government's official webpage in respect of terrorist organisations and legislation. The suppression order (as the official government website makes clear) covers the IRA in all its manifestations, therefore this includes the Provisional IRA. There is also peer reviewed academic articles in respect of this. There is also case law clarifying this (similar to the UK prior to legislative clarification).

To be clear - the Suppression Order outlaws the IRA in all its manifestations and therefore covers this specific and named group. I tried to insert a note similar to the UK one but the formatting wasn't working for me.

Indeed the sourced UK legislation and case law in respect of the IRA references (i) the Irish counter-terrorism laws and (ii) an Irish Supreme Court case insofar as it draws parallel in that reference to IRA covers the organisation in all its form.

Reference to a 50 year old organisation is irrelevant - the IRA in all its manifestations is currently (and has been since 1939) an unlawful organisation under counter-terrorism laws that ergo designate the IRA in all its manifestations as a terrorist organisation. I am sure I can provide several hundred newspaper sources from the Republic of Ireland that also categorises the IRA as a terrorist group and its activities as a terrorist activity - would that be original research or merely referencing the past 80 years of law and jorunalism?

I will be updating the dissident republican organisations as well but did not have time last night. TheSquareMile (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow-on from this and to note that under the LVF page you referred to a US government source, surely a Republic of Ireland government source is of equal weight, relevance and reliability? TheSquareMile (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I do-the problem is you just do not know what you are talking about. The US govt source links to an actual list of designated terrorist organizations. Please scroll up until you see name of the page, hopefully that will clear up any outstanding confusion. OgamD218 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, the Irish sources go to a specific legislation naming the IRA and the official website of ROI government stating it is unlawful under counter-terrorism law. The US has 2 separate lists, 1 a list of designated terrorist organisations and 1 for a list of designated groups - can you see the difference there? Please do not insult me saying I do not know what I am talking about. TheSquareMile (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of US policy but for now let's move on. Once again, the ROI does not have a list of designated terrorist groups. I'm not gonna keep doing this over and over forever but I'll reiterate no, the sources do not say what you're insisting they do-please stop presenting your personal conclusions/OR as sourced; nothing referenced actually states the ROI designated specifically the Provisional Irish Republican Army as a terrorist org. The law you keep mis-citing is anti-sedition legislation from WWII that in 2005 was amended to also encompass/fill possible voids with regards to cases involving terrorist activity. ROI never passed a law/issued an official legal designation that PIRA is a terrorist group. What is sourced: ROI law gives the gov broad authority to prescribe/ban/criminalize membership in groups for being seditious orgs and co-option of the title "Irish Republican Army" can be enough to warrant this. If I am wrong find me an ROI law that actually designates PIRA a terrorist org-deciding to call The Offenses Against the State Act is "anti terrorism law" does not make is a list of designated terr groups and the sects ref groups claiming the title IRA is not actually a specific reference to any group at all-that the point actually. I again implore you to consider how serious it is breaching NPOV with regards to status as a designated terrorist group. The "Categorization" section of the PIRA article provides a thorough education in this area. OgamD218 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not conducted OR but have looked at an Irish Government website (this is the exact same standards of sourcing used for USA/EU/UK/NZ/Canada/Aus/Germ/Fran etc. I am not interpreting anything but just stating what the Irish Government says. The 1939 Act is counter-terrorism legislation (this is sourced and factual). The PIRA is an unlawful organisation in Ireland because a Suppression Order under the 1939 Act applies to it (this is sourced and factual). The IRA (in all its manifestations) was Suppressed because it was engaged in terrorist activities (this is sourced and factual). The concept of terrorist offences was not first introduced in 2005 in Ireland - are you really suggesting Ireland did not have counter-terrorist legislation before 2005? Respectfully, it is you who is engaging in POVism and attempting to say that 'designated terrorist organisation' is a defined concept globally except in Ireland in relation to the IRA (in all its manifestations). The reality is that 'designated terrorist organisation' is not a legally defined term in virtually all countries but a commonly accepted phrase to apply to illegal organisations. Respectfully, you are suggesting you have expert knowledge on all things without providing any (and I emphasise any) sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSquareMile (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Idt you've been editing on wiki long enough to necessarily understand the rules and procedures, especially those applicable this subject but to be fair that takes all of us awhile. Some others things however there's not much else to do, this is not a debate-the Irish government has never designated the Provisional IRA a terrorist group. I am trying to convey to you that the reason why this site has been almost 2 decade and the PIRA for over half a century but not until you started editing last week was it reflected that the PIRA was a designated terrorist org by the ROI. Much of your claims do not actually exist in the sources you cite and if this was an RfC or something similar your demands for sources would apply but this is a settled issue and wiki rules exist against stubborn editors making heavy demands on the time of others to disprove a negative when so much of the problem is a lack of adequate knowledge of the topic by that editor. Please stop making things up re the 1939 Law-nobody could make the errors your making with even a minimal knowledge of this. Similarly, if you were adequately informed on the topic you'd have noted the significance of Irish law being amended in this area in 1998 and 2005 respectfully. If you paid proper attention to the primary sources you're relied on you may have noticed that the 2005 ROI guidance does at least mentions by name CIRA and RIRA but NOT PIRA.

Reasonable people can, long have and do disagree re whether or not the PIRA was a terrorist org. In response to not only the ambiguity but polarization surrounding the term, starting in late 20th century and accelerating post 9/11, govts began compiling lists of specific groups designated as terrorist orgs. The purpose of this page page is to reflect those lists. This is a LIST page, to put it simply. As you must at this point be fully aware, the US govt provides a list, designating specific groups, the UK govt provides a list designating specific groups, The UNSC provides a list designating specific groups, the EU provides a list designating specific groups. The Irish Govt does not provide a list designating any specific group a terrorist org. OgamD218 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you allege I am "making up" in respect of the 1939 Act? The Irish Government describes it as counter-terrorist legislation (currently and before 2005 legislation - please look at the UN report on Ireland in 2001 on the matter). As I have mentioned, virtually all countries do not have a legal definition of designated terrorist organisation. This is an undefined term commonly used to described terrorist organisations that have been outlawed, proscribed, listed, designated as unlawful or suppressed under domestic counter-terrorist legislation, indeed the UN does not mention 'designated terrorist organisations' it merely has a consolidated list of entities and organisations or groups which sanctions apply to. Likewise the EU does not refer to 'designated terrorist organisations' but they have 2 separate lists of entities, groups or organisations sanctions apply to and requests member states to prevent dealing with. You appear to be alleging that Ireland is unique in the world in that an organisation deemed unlawful under counter-terrorism laws is not actually a terrorist organisation and there is some special and unique consequence of this i.e. Ireland has deliberately not defined 'designated terrorist organisation' to circumnavigate extradition law - this is frankly wrong. Can you please stop abusing me by alleging I know nothing about topics and insinuating you somehow have special or expert knowledge - the purpose is to use credible, reliable sources and not your own opinion, which appears to be the only thing you are advancing. This is a factual list (as you say) - can you please clarify how the Irish Government sourcing is unreliable if that is what you are saying (rather than making unfounded statements that this is a 50 year old settled question - which is a bizarre argument to use).

Do you agree that the CIRA, RIRA and INLA are terrorist organisations which have been outlawed by Ireland? These sections will need to be updated on the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSquareMile (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ireland replies upon the 1939 Act in terms of counter-terrorism in a response to the UN on the matter. Ireland states, in summary, (Ireland's words not my opinion), that the 1939 Act (and Criminal Law Act 1976) makes the recruitment to a terrorist group (namely an unlawful organisation under the 1939 Act) a criminal offence. Ireland is relying upon the unlawful organisation designation (under its domestic law) to mean that such groups are designated terrorist groups under the (undefined) well-used generic term 'designated terrorist organisation'. (A term the UNSC doesn't even use!!).

From Letter dated 21 December 2001 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism addressed to the President of the Security Council attaching a report from Ireland.

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/718/16/PDF/N0171816.pdf?OpenElement

"UN Question: Subparagraph (a) What legislation or other measures are in place to give effect to this subparagraph? In particular, what offences in your country prohibit (i) recruitment to terrorist groups and (ii) the supply of weapons to terrorists? What other measures help prevent such activities?

Ireland's response: Provisions of the criminal law generally as well as those specific elements directed to offences against the State have application to paragraph 2 (a).

The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998 make it an offence to be a member of an unlawful organization. Those Acts also make special provision in relation to evidentiary matters connected with the question of membership of such organizations"."

"The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998 make provision in relation to actions and conduct calculated to undermine public order and the authority of the State and to regulate and control in the public interest the formation of associations. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) have been declared unlawful organizations in accordance with, and for the purposes of, the provisions of those Acts. The Criminal Law Act 1976 makes it an offence for a person to incite or invite another person to support or assist the activities of such organizations." TheSquareMile (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The explanatory memorandum that relates to the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) BILL, 2002 (and CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005) does not mention nor refer to the CIRA as you claim. There is no other official guidance on this legislation from the Irish Government, please provide me with a link to the source of your guidance.

Despite your unsourced arguments that the 2005 Act effectively was the first counter-terrorist legislation in Ireland its purpose was to honour its international obligations it has undertaken as part of the EU and the broader international community. Its purpose is to combat international terrorism and financing and it did/does not substantially amend the 1939 Act, but rather uses it as a bedrock of the 2005 Act and enhances it with additional power relevant to international terrorism and combating the international financing of terrorism after 9/11.

Similar to the EU (which has 2 lists of sanctioned organisations) Ireland has 2 lists - one incorporates the EU sanctioned entities meaning those organisations are unlawful organisations under the 1939 Act (if the EU Regulations are implemented by way of Statutory Instrument in Ireland) and one that is autonomous to Ireland which includes the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA. You appear to be hanging your hat on the argument that Ireland does not have a webpage with a consolidated list of all organisations that are unlawful (because they are terrorist organisations) but the official 'Terrorist' webpage of the Irish Department of Justice is clear that the IRA (in all its manifestations) including the RIRA and CIRA are unlawful terrorist organisations under Ireland's counter-terrorism laws (being primarily the 1939 Act) and the legislation is perfectly clear (and the sources have been provided here). You appear to be discounting these sources entirely (despite them being equivalent to UK/USA/UNSC/EU/NZ/AUZ etc etc). TheSquareMile (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

With the greatest amount of respect, the UK does not have a list designating groups as terrorist organisations. It has a list of groups that it has proscribed as illegal and outlawed (meaning it is illegal to be a member or supporter of). The fact the UK publishes a consolidated list on its Government website does not mean there is any special or legal meaning to the term "designated terrorist organisation" - the UK does not use that term (this is factual and sourced).

Ireland has published 2 pieces of legislation (i.e. 2 Suppression Orders - under its counter-terrorism legislation) designating 2 groups as outlawed and illegal in its jurisdiction (the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA). The Irish Government states these groups are outlawed because they are terrorist organisations (this is sourced and factual - there is countless news, journalistic, academic sources verifying this description). Further the UN, and in reports submitted to the UN by Ireland, it classes the 1939 Act as the relevant counter-terrorist legislation that combats terrorist activities and organisations. The reports are to the UN in respect of its obligations in fulfilling counter-terrorist obligations.

Your footnote n1 does not appear to work.

If this page is a factual list of organisations that are outlawed, made illegal, proscribed, suppressed, listed or designated as an unlawful organisation under counter-terrorism legislation, then it is a fact and well sourced that the IRA (in all its forms) is a designated terrorist organisation (as that term is commonly used in articles, journals and most importantly Wikipedia).

Are you stating that Ireland is the only country in the world that does not have counter-terrorism legislation and that the groups it outlaws under counter-terrorism legislation would not be a 'designated terrorist organisation' because it is your opinion that the IRA is not a terrorist organisation in Ireland?

Further, the Special Criminal Court was set up to deal with terrorist related crime (Wikipedia page on the topic, Irish sources on the topic and the United Nations reports on counter-terrorism laws on Ireland) therefore, the only organisation which it applied to (at the time) was the IRA (in all its manifestations). It was later extended to organised crime offences as well (Wikipedia page). The Special Criminal Court is a construction under the original 1939 Act.

In Ireland no criminal organised gang has been suppressed - the IRA (in all its manifestations) and the INLA are subject to the relevant 1939 counter-terrorist law because Ireland says this (on its Government website and to the UN in its numerous reports). TheSquareMile (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I responded more fully on the my talk page where you gave me warnings. The USA has 2 lists and one just refers to 'designated groups'. The other is a list of 'foreign designated terrorist organisations' if you want to be peadantic around the true meaning and definition of words (rather than the academic, political and journalistic approach - all well sourced (unlike your unsourced arguments)) the USA does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations' but it has a list of 'designated foreign terrorist organisations'. I don't know if you are being serious in your attempt to jump through legalistic hoops in order to arrive at the final destination of 'Ireland does not consider any organisation to be a terrorist organisation'.

Secondly, the UK does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations'. However, it has a list of 'proscribed organisations or groups'.

The UN does not have a list of 'designated terrorist organisations' it has a consolidated list of groups or entities that sanctions apply.

The table below from another editor sets out that virtually all countries (except Australia) does not have a legal definition of 'designated terrorist organisation' but it is universally accepted, acknowledged, sourced, referenced that they are considered to be 'designated terrorist organisations' if they are illegal or unlawful organisations.

The law is not as a result of WWII - indeed precursor to this 1939 Act was embedded in the Irish Constitution before it was declared a Republic with a new Constitution.

Can you find me a law that says:

- UK proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- UN sanctioned organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- EU sanctions organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- New Zealand proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

In respect of the 1939 Irish Offenses Against the State Act, it is still valid law in Ireland. The Irish government (not me) says it was intended to suppress the IRA (in all its manifestations) - this includes the PIRA and the newer dissident groups. The Irish government (not me) says it is counter-terrorist legislation.

From the Irish Government website here https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism (if you haven't looked at it):

"These Acts were introduced and have been primarily used to counter the threat posed by the IRA in all its manifestations, including, latterly, the dissident republican terrorist organisations of the so-called Real IRA and Continuity IRA. The Offences against the State Acts provide for a range of terrorist-related offences, with maximum court-imposed sentences varying according to the specific offence."

You state that the original 1939 Act was not meant to suppress terrorism - can you please provide a source for your assertion? The Irish Government above is clear as to the purpose of such legislation. The advent of WW2 is irrelevant and you ignore the fact that the suppression of terrorism (domestic) and the IRA was of vital importance around the time Ireland declared a Republic (much more significant).

The 1939 Act applies equally to the PIRA and the newer dissident IRA organisations, if you are not aware unless a law is repealed it still remains in force - in any event the Irish Government (and court cases) are clear that it covers dissident IRA groups despite your weak argument (with no sources).

The wording "as has been the case since 1939" provides the context i.e. the IRA in all its manifestations is an illegal organisation (because it is a terrorist organisation). This provides clarity and a wider context to the organisation.

There have not been that many edits throughout the years to this act (indeed only 3!) so your argument about cusp of WW2 seems a diversionary tactic:

• Offences Against the State Act, 1939
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1972
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1985
• Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998

According to the Irish Republican Army Wikipedia page that entity existed until it split into the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA therefore the 1939 Act was specifically relevant to the PIRA as a successor to the IRA (1922 - 1969). Again - this is not my views, thoughts or original research but what Wikipedia says on the matter.

Further, the Special Criminal Court was set up to deal with terrorist related crime (Wikipedia page on the topic) therefore, the only organisation which it applied to (at the time) was the IRA (in all its manifestations). It was later extended to organised crime offences as well (Wikipedia page). The Special Criminal Court is a construction under the original 1939 Act.

Can you please provide me with any source, and not your opinion, which states the IRA (in all its guises) is not a terrorist organisation in Ireland?

In your response of yours to another editor:

"Once again, this subject while complicated has been thoroughly reviewed and decided-if you wish to change this policy you may propose such through the appropriate channels. Once again, I really am assuming good faith but in order to do so you are forcing me to conclude that you are not well versed in either this area of the law or the The Troubles. The PIRA has never at any point been a designated terrorist group in the United States, nor was it deemed an illegal org-enabling the PIRA's US supporters much greater freedom to raise support for the group in stark contrast to the Republic where PIRA was illegal. Until the 1980s it was not even possible for the UK to extradite PIRA members from the US on terrorism charges due to the very real difference in legal recognition. The CIRA and RIRA are designated by the US-bu these are completely different groups. The PIRA status as a "proscribed organization" vs a terrorist org was of incredible importance as it meant that the Irish government did not extradite PIRA members to the UK for actions deemed terrorist activity by UK law (such as bombings and the killing of security forces)-however PIRA membership often did result in a modest prison term (~2-5 years in gaol). Accordingly please do not so summarily dismiss that the difference between merely "illegal" "designated terrorist" is one of semantics."

Firstly, your statement of "the PIRA status as a "proscribed organization" vs a terrorist org was of incredible importance as it meant that the Irish Government did not extradite PIRA members to the UK for actions deemed terrorist activity by UK law (such as bombings and the killing of security forces)". With the greatest amount of respect, this statement is just wrong. (1) the status of the PIRA in Ireland was irrelevant when it came to a court (or other relevant official) in deciding whether to grant a rendition (not an extradition) request. (2) in determining a rendition request the court (or other relevant official) had to determine whether the crime the person was wanted for was a "political crime" or not - the concept of terrorist crime did not enter the equation - that 'incredible importance' as you claim is unfounded, unsubstantiated and fundamentally flawed (in Ireland or UK). The factual case is that it had zero importance on the extradition request - the status of the PIRA in Ireland was irrelevant for a Judge or other official in determining whether to send a person to the UK (or elsewhere) for trial for offences in that specific country. (3) rendition requests were granted for crimes such as murder (as that could not be classed as a political crime), but usually were not granted for crimes such as possession of semi-automatic weapons (automatic weapons could not be classed as a political crime). (4) presumably you are referring to the Finucane case in 1990 (which related to rendition requests prior to Ireland and the UK changing its extradition laws to the EU terrorist extradition laws which would have prevented most crime being classed as political crimes). In that Finucance case the High Court ruled his crimes were not political crimes and he could be rendited, but the Supreme Court over ruled that decision and held he could not be extradited because it would infringe his human rights on the basis (as an escaped prisoner) he would like be subject to abuse or torture by the prison authorities (not that the PIRA was an illegal organisation in Ireland, rather than a terrorist organisation).

There is not a single Irish case that prevented (or even considered the argument of the technicality of the description of the organisation) on the basis the PIRA was described as an illegal organisation rather than a terrorist organisation. If I am wrong on this please can you provide your source(s) that you are relying upon.

There is absolutely no arguable legal basis, nor sources provided, to state or claim that there is a (real world 'incredible importance') technical legal difference between an entity being described as "illegal" or being described as a "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland. With respect, this is an attempt to play on words (at best semantics) coupled with your alleged expertise, with no sources provided, on (1) extradition law, (2) international law, (3) Irish law, (4) the provisional IRA and (5) the definition of "designated terrorist organisation" in Ireland and globally

By way of example, in the UK there is no such thing as a "designated terrorist organisation", there is a list of "proscribed terrorist groups or organisations" - however, there is no definition of "terrorist organisation" (there is a definition of "terrorism"), significantly the UK legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed. Do you see the semantics here and how it applies equally to Ireland? i.e. the Irish legislative framework sets out the process by which an individual or a terrorist group can be proscribed as an unlawful organisation (under counter-terrorism laws).

I am genuinely at a loss to understand your arguments and would appreciate a respectful discussion - can you please provide any source at all to support your assertions that an unlawful organisation in Ireland under the 1939 Act is not a terrorist organisation? (in the exact same way a proscribed organisation in the UK under its legislation is considered as a 'designated terrorist organisation' by Wikipedia standards?)

In the real world and in the Wikipedia world it is abundantly clear that illegal organisations in countries (whether they are defined legally as terrorist organisations, proscribed organisations, designated organisations, listed organisations, unlawful organisations etc) are universally considered to be designated terrorist organisations.

Indeed the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List is simply that - a list, but it is universally accepted to mean 'designated terrorist organisations'.T TheSquareMile (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@OgamD218 not the first time I see you dismissing other editors for alleged POV violations. Please engage respectfully in conversations. The whole point is to find a compromise, not attack users who don't agree with you.

@TheSquareMile & @OgamD218 I also find there is a double standard with the IRA treated differently than other groups. I tried to edit and engage in talks but it seems like editors are very polarised on this and rushing to dismiss edits and other editors instead of addressing the core issue. Get ready for a long comment - I tried to highlight the double standard by checking how we typically define terrorist groups on Wikipedia (I'll let you find the issue):

Let's assume a simple misunderstanding here but many editors keep focusing on the legal term "Unlawful Organisation" to justify it should purely be translated as "illegal". Looking at other countries very few use "terrorist" as a defined legal term but it's commonly understood as terrorist groups.

If you take Al-Qaeda it's clearly labelled a "designated terrorist group". Now if we applied the same logic as the IRA it would merely be a "a proscribed organisation in the UK, a listed entity in Canada and a designated entity under EO 13224 in the United States". We'll all agree this is overcomplicated, blurring the lines, not the meaning of any of the laws and of the published sources. And it would be misleading for Wikipedia readers - you'd really expect all that to be clearer.

We should apply the same standards to all organisations. It's clearly what we do for every other country (relying on references highlighting their laws, the meaning of their law, how the governments describe those organisations and how all those external references go in the same direction). This should be our neutral, externally-referenced baseline. Original selective interpretation trying to skew the definition relying solely on the legal term (while discarding everything else) should not be used.

Table references:

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/II

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups

[5] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00183

[6] https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations

[7] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-11.7/page-1.html

[8] https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/37-1/bill/C-36/royal-assent/page-48#8

[9] https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx

[10] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32001E0931

[11] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/terrorist-list/

[12] http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1267

[13] https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/un-sc-consolidated-list

[14] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2002-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2002-title3-vol1-eo13224.pdf

[15] https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm

[16] https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/

[17] https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/13/enacted/en/html

[18] https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/13/section/18/enacted/en/html

[19] https://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

(Apologies for the very long comment - let me know if there's any easy way to at least collapse the sources or something) AlanTheScientist (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not deny that you raise valid points-in fact the argument that there's a "double standard" favoring the PIRA is a longstanding point of contention. Let me be clear though, this debate with regards to wiki policy has been long settled and these changes are outright breaches of prior rulings. After reading your statement here and on my talk page I am almost certain that good faith exists and that this is as you said purely a misunderstanding. Yes you are correct that comparatively few countries have formal legislation specifically designated terrorist organizations-this page is a list of those specific organizations that fall into this category however.......That you, me or however many journalists and scholars feel a groups should be included on a list of designated terrorist organizations has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that group is to be included herein.

If you take Al-Qaeda it's clearly labelled a "designated terrorist group". Now if we applied the same logic as the IRA it would merely be a "a proscribed organisation in the UK, a listed entity in Canada and a designated entity under EO 13224 in the United States". We'll all agree this is overcomplicated, blurring the lines, not the meaning of any of the laws and of the published sources. And it would be misleading for Wikipedia readers - you'd really expect all that to be clearer. Once again, this subject while complicated has been thoroughly reviewed and decided-if you wish to change this policy you may propose such through the appropriate channels. Once again, I really am assuming good faith but in order to do so you are forcing me to conclude that you are not well versed in either this area of the law or the The Troubles. The PIRA has never at any point been a designated terrorist group in the United States, nor was it deemed an illegal org-enabling the PIRA's US supporters much greater freedom to raise support for the group in stark contrast to the Republic where PIRA was illegal. Until the 1980s it was not even possible for the UK to extradite PIRA members from the US on terrorism charges due to the very real difference in legal recognition. The CIRA and RIRA are designated by the US-bu these are completely different groups. The PIRA status as a "proscribed organization" vs a terrorist org was of incredible importance as it meant that the Irish government did not extradite PIRA members to the UK for actions deemed terrorist activity by UK law (such as bombings and the killing of security forces)-however PIRA membership often did result in a modest prison term (~2-5 years in gaol). Accordingly please do not so summarily dismiss that the difference between merely "illegal" "designated terrorist" is one of semantics. OgamD218 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

changes are outright breaches of prior rulings / this subject while complicated has been thoroughly reviewed and decided-if you wish to change this policy you may propose such through the appropriate channels => Could you please reference those prior rulings and describe what would be the appropriate channels to propose changes? I couldn't find any clear decision on this (at least not on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles or on this talk page archives) and I was under the impression we were discussing potential changes here.

you are not well versed in either this area of the law or the The Troubles => This is a personal attack again, I am once more asking you to stop this.

The PIRA has never at any point been a designated terrorist group in the United States => This is not the question here, we're talking about Ireland.

Until the 1980s it was not even possible for the UK to extradite PIRA members => I don't believe extradition protocols have anything to do with the designation of organisations. Again, it looks like we're trying to cherry pick small print excuses instead of applying a standard definition - back to my original point. If Germany didn't have extradition laws for Al Quaeda members but declared it terrorist would you go and override a whole sovereign country's labelling and say then we should call it illegal organisation because Germany couldn't actually extradite them at some point? AlanTheScientist (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to insinuate that you may not be well informed enough on a topic to alter long standing content in a way as substantial as say whether or not an organization was a terrorist one in nature or something as complex as the norms of international and transnational law. Case in point-

I don't believe extradition protocols have anything to do with the designation of organisations, extradition protocols are actually always different in this area. The fact remains however that this is not actually a debate, I was just trying to convey to you that a difference exists between Irish legalists labeling certain activities as terrorism and prosecuting laws meant to clamp down on forms of dissent that historical disrupt public order and actually legislating that a specific organization is official designated by law a terrorist group. Modern Ireland as standard practice extradites persons facing criminal prosecution in the uk-the fact that Ireland would extradite back to the UK murders in general but not those charged with murder as terrorist offense in the uk for killing british soldiers is inherently linked to the fact that doing so conflicted with Irish law which did not designate the PIRA as such-simultaneously the same individuals not (or in rare instances) being extradited from Ireland to the UK did face charges for belonging to an illegal org.

To try and answer your inquiry, it is an aspect of German law that members of designated terrorist orgs are to be extradited accordingly. In fact, German law outright bans extradition to jurisdictions such as the US that seek to apply capital punishment-the sole exception being if German law designates the party a terrorist or not. At the end of the day this is all just a way of trying to explain what i think you are already aware-there is no Irish law currently in existence specifically designating the PIRA as a terrorist organization-Irish common law is very clear, the PIRA is a proscribed/illegal group. OgamD218 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please reply to this: changes are outright breaches of prior rulings / this subject while complicated has been thoroughly reviewed and decided-if you wish to change this policy you may propose such through the appropriate channels -> Could you please reference those prior rulings and describe what would be the appropriate channels to propose changes?

It is not a personal attack to insinuate that you may not be well informed enough on a topic... => Yes it is. Again, please discuss the topic instead of the editors. And again, we should use the same standards and external sources to build articles. Do you have any reliable external source supporting your claims here? (e.g. why the extradition law would impact how a country names terrorist organisations). I've added 20 reliable sources showing the double standard here and you only seem to use your own analysis and to be simply moving to new excuses to justify why the IRA should somehow not be listed as a terrorist organisation (from using the legal term "unlawful organisation" to now exploring extraditions). AlanTheScientist (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al-badr flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Grey Wolves Gokturk Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

EOKA: Greek Terrorism in Cyprus

The Greek EOKA nationalist extremist terrorist organisation should be included in the List of designated terrorist groups. It was clearly designated as such by the UK (British Cyprus), and is currently by the Republic of Türkiye (Turkey) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC, or Northern Cyprus.

See below the previous edit:

|- | | EOKA | United Kingdom (incl. British Cyprus), Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus |-

It was later suggested to me that "designated " in the article's title implies that the list should only include those groups that are formally declared to be terrorist groups by a government or relevant organization, and where there is a reference that explicitly says that.

Although this status is clearly inferred by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs (see the above edit), the inclusion of the United Kingdom was more on the basis of the historical pre-1960 Cyprus Government designating it as a terrorist organisation and treating it as such domestically and internationally, and while I provided a number of cross-verifiable sources that attest to this, I notice however that the British Government does have a policy paper titled Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations that is available online and which does not include EOKA among the list of proscribed terrorist groups.

It is therefore clear that including Britain here as a proscriber of EOKA as a terrorist organisation - even with inference to the British government in Cyprus which proscribed it as such then - is not necessary legally correct at this moment in time. The case of EOKA being proscribed a terrorist organisation by the governments of Türkiye and the TRNC however leaves absolutely no room for doubt.

This is the edit I now propose to make removing any reference to Britain:

|- | | EOKA | Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus |-

Thoughts? Nargothronde (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've received no sound reason for contention I'm going to go ahead now and add EOKA to the List of designated terrorist groups. Nargothronde (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Like you have been told previously and posting it in 2 seperate places wont help your case, one of those entities is unrecognised (Northern Cyprus) so it wouldnt be on there anyways, secondly the Turkish source is weak, there is no statute nor anything on the Turkish police website pointing to an organisation disbanded 60 years ago being a proscribed terrorist organisation, a talking point of the Turkish MoFA is not a legal designation which is what every other source here has had, I dont see why here the bar should be lowered. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You have already tried pushing your points of view elsewhere including on both my Talk Page and your own Talk Page, the former of which you have also used to harass me etc and the latter of which I used to give you some crucial advice related to what has long since left the borderings of disruptive editing etc. To avoid re-inventing the wheel I refer you back to them.

Now on what you're attempting here, and in as much brevity as possible: your opinions regarding the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC, Northern Cyprus) are irrelevant to the designation of EOKA as a terrorist organisation by that government. The Turkish sources are strong, reliable and cross-verifiable, as well as supported with multiple third-party strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources... about your assertion that "every other source here has had" a "legal designation" i.e. a "statute... on the (Turkish) police website", I think you'll find that is also incorrect, and I won't need to get any deeper into that one.

Previously I offered to provide assistance etc if there's anything you need help with i.e. if there's something you still do not understand... that offer still stands. Nargothronde (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, I havent read your spam before, im not reading it now, I dont get how many more times I need to tell you to understand, either give some form of legal designation or your edit cant be made. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Like you have been told before, this is a list of groups that are officially designated as terror groups by a government or international organizations. You would need to provide an official statement that says the respective government have designated EOKA as a terrorist group, like this list from the Turkish Police or a reference to the legislation that designates EOKA as a terrorist group. That is the bar for inclusion on this page. It is not enough that someone uses the word "terrorist", especially when that someone is not part of the government, like British Movietone and the authors of the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism. Adding walls of text will not change that. Sjö (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It is obvious that EOKA has been called a terrorist group, but this is not the "list of groups that have been called terrorist"; if it was the article would be much, much longer. Politicians and organizations close to the government do use words like "criminal", "illegal". "usurper" or "terrorist" in their rethoric, but the use of those words has no legal effect whatsoever. It takes a formal decision by the relevant process of designation for that country or organisation to "designate" a group so that it can be included in this article. All that you have to do is provide the references that prove that such a formal decision has been made concerning EOKA. Sjö (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This is all very clear and important.

Another Question:

The "Annual report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, 16 June 1955-15 June 1956". has a memorandum that was not at all shy in scathing the UK but, in clear inference to Greece's EOKA terrorist campaign, had stated: "in Cyprus... a powerful military machine of about 20,000 troops had been set up... with the official pur-pose of establishing "law and order" against terrorism..."

And the list of such memorandums and reports by te UN goes on...

Though this particular report certainly falls short of formally designating EOKA as a "terrorist organisation", or some informal designation of that by the UN, for example, does it not have any relation to other countries i.e. the UK and Turkey citing as such? Or does it also have to be accompanied with legislative action such as sanctions etc within the UN itself? How do these things apply?

As a citation to be used here how would that work?

The UN is an internationally recognised body and an authority on combating terrorism. And clearly it does condemn Greece for its "campaign of incitement to violence and subversion" via EOKA... but is this also just an example of "someone using the word "terrorist"?

Additional Note:

The citations I provided in my most recent entry included the formal statements made by the heads of state and foreign ministries of their respective governments etc and who did make it fundamentally clear that EOKA was and is designated by those governments as a terrorist organisation.

This is not citing any "legislation that designates EOKA as a terrorist group" but what is the difference between citing these direct first-party government sources - supported by multiple third-party reliable sources - and an "official statement that says the respective government have designated EOKA as a terrorist group"? Are they not already exactly that?

Do only one of these conditions need to be satisfied or are you implying that also (1) "a reference to the legislation that designates XXXX as a terrorist group", (2) a "list from the XXXX police" and (3) "a formal decision by the relevant process of designation for that country or organisation to "designate" a group so that it can be included in this article" etc all need to be collectively satisfied for any entry to make it into in Wikipedia's List of designated terrorist groups page?

Here is my entry again, just for reference: |-| | EOKA| Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)

I see a number of other entries here which also cite Turkey as a designator and, just as I have done, have provided direct government sources i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a reference.

On That Note:

There are other entries which include Turkey as a designator that simply cite studies, news and fringe articles, first-party articles but still from the news, articles from countries that designate an organisation as a terrorist group and then simply say Turkey has also done so...

I also see a number of other entries in this list that did not cite: "a reference to the legislation that designates XXXX as a terrorist group", a "list from the XXXX police" or "a formal decision by the relevant process of designation for that country or organisation to "designate" a group so that it can be included in this article" etc, many of them providing only news articles etc......

Though saying all of this is very tongue-in-cheek, I think it does also highlight another potential issue here: interpretation.

You are right, being "called" a terrorist group is different to actually being one with "legal effect", but without a doubt the opaqueness of certain designations as well as the processes of designation, which do vary from country to country, do certainly have their ramifications here.

Perhaps it's also worth considering that the criteria for including the different "designators" of terrorist organisations could also be based on the designation methods of the states mentioned?

Thoughts? Nargothronde (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Youre still not doing what youre asked. If your case was that strong you would have had a legal designation and this would have been over, instead youre just filling the page with almost repetitve points to make it seem like youre actually making a seperate point. Just give us one designation by a judicial source in Turkey and this is all over, otherwise stop trying to argue (And the UN has no legal jurisdiction for your UN statement to hold any legitimacy, the UNGA would have to vote to accept EOKA as a terrorist organisation, something it did not do). SirBlueWhite (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you attempted to say this entry could not be made because the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC, Northern Cyprus) was unrecognised, despite the clear irrelevance these opinions have on the designation of EOKA as a terrorist organisation by that government... you attempted to say that the Turkish sources provided were weak, despite the fact they are strong, reliable and cross-verifiable, as well as supported with multiple third-party strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources... you tried to assert that "every other source here has had" a "legal designation" i.e. a "statute... on the (Turkish) police website", despite the fact that is also incorrect, and I wish I wouldn't have had to go any further into that one but here we are again.

To keep this as brief as possible:

My points are valid.

And though I'm not arguing against the added verification a "judicial source" can provide here, one does need to ask: if it’s okay elsewhere to not cite a “judicial source” why not here?

Just scrolling through the article one can easily observe the following details about these entries:

(1) Organisation: Force 17 | Designator: Israel | Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

(2) Organisation: East Turkestan Information Centre | Designator: China | Source: China-embassy.org

(3) Organisation: Harakat Ansar Iran | Designator: Iran | Source: The Daily Beast

(4) Organisation: Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan | Designator: Tajikistan | Source: National Bank of Tajikistan

(5) Organisation: Jewish Underground | Designator: Israel | Source: TRT World

(6) Organisation: Kingdom Assembly of Iran | Designator: Iran | Source: Deutsche Welle

(7) Organisation: Movement for the self-determination of Kabylie | Designator: Algeria | Source: Reuters

(8) Organisation: Oromo Liberation Army | Designator: Ethiopia | Source: Africanews

(9) Organisation: National Council of Resistance of Iran | Designator: Iran | Source: None

(10) Organisation: Revolutionary Antifascist Patriotic Front | Designator: Spain | Source: Spain Ministry of Internal Affairs

Number of judicial sources: 0

Number of sources that cite a judicial source: 0

And the list goes on...

Something can also be said about the number of total official government sources (i.e. Ministry of Foreign Affairs etc) cited in the article, among them:

(1) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (Sources: "Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu's Remarks on the Killing of Al-Qaeda Leader Bin Laden in Pakistan" & "Xi Jinping Delivers a Speech on the Killing of Chinese Citizens by Terrorist Organizations - 习近平就我国公民被恐怖组织杀害事件发表讲话")

(2) The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Source: "Summary of indictments against Al-Qaeda terrorists in Samaria")

(3) Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Sources: "Turkey's Contributions to International Community's Efforts to Fight Terrorism" & "PKK")

(4) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (Source: "Implementation of the Measures including the Freezing of Assets against Terrorists and the Like")

...

Again, note how none of these are "judicial sources" etc, nor are they citing "judicial sources" etc, though they are official statements from key government sources on the proscription of an organisation as a terrorist organisation, and for some of these countries that is enough, these statements no-doubt followed whatever processes of designation their respective governments have.

Another danger lies in trying to cherry pick and create new requirements for the inclusion of an entry in this article - specifically that of EOKA - when those requirements are not applied elsewhere.

This seemingly vehement resistance to the inclusion of a "designated terrorist group" in the "List of designated terrorist groups" also raises questions.

I hope this is finally enough to disuade one from presenting any more partisan, biased, skewed and editorially non-neutral points of view in these discussions... it's okay to join these discussions in good faith and be polite and helpful but it's really just going well beyond repeated attempts to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

1) The Israeli source is fine as it is announcing the indictment of individuals in this organisation, meaning there is legal action against them, that covers the legal designation, if this is how youre putting the bar, ok fine, can you show me an announcement from the Turkish government announcing the arrest and indictment of EOKA members?

2) The Chinese source clearly states that they are acting on information coming from China's Ministry of Public Security.

3) I agree that the source for that one is weak and I will add the better source needed template as if im not wrong the daily beast generally isnt allowed as a source on wikipedia+ it doesnt prove the Iranians said that it just adds the quotes.

4) The Tajiki source is listing the organisations and clearly shows the legal statutes which it is following so that is ok.

5) You are correct and the TRT one will be removed as thats clearly a TRT opinion and makes no mention of a designation but funilly enough this organisation works for the same government you try saying designated as EOKA as terrorists so it just makes my point.

6) It states that Iran has arrested this person on terrorism charges so the legal statute is obviously there, its not DW thats calling him a terrorist but if it makes you feel better ill add a better citation needed to that one as well.

7) Clearly states that the organisations were designated as terrorists

8) Shouldnt even be there as it was removed as a terrorist organisation so its not in the correct section and will be ammended.

9) Doesnt even have a source so it will be removed.

10) The Spanish one is absolutely fine, I dont see where you have an issue with that, its the organisation responsible for public security so.

You adding the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs after doesnt help your case, because ive already seen that and you know out of all the organisations it has on the website, you know who it doesnt have? EOKA.

And stop trying to fool anyone, youre editing based off of a Turkish nationalist POV and youre trying to make the point of "Greek bad, Turkey good", you make it quite apaprent in your user page and from your edits, or would you like me to point out how you made an edit about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and tried calling it the "Greek coup d'etat", so please, dont insult peoples intelligence. SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not adding anything new here. The facts are clear: The Republic of Türkiye and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, according to their Ministries of Foreign Affairs, their Presidencies, through their representatives to the United Nations, the TRNC Public Information Office, in Press Releases, Official Statements... the governments of those countries, in line with their own official processes of designation and making that designation known to the governments of other countries etc, clearly formally designate EOKA as a terrorist organisation.

Again, how ever many times this needs to be presented: |-| | EOKA| Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)

And the list of sources to support this goes on. Nargothronde (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You know what, keep whinging about your sources, clearly nobody agrees with you (And giving legitimacy to an unrecognised organisation also doesnt do you any favors+One of your sources talks about EOKA from 1963-1974, EOKA disbanded in the period of 1959-1961), you have consecutively made disruptive edits and this is clearly just another one have a good day. SirBlueWhite (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And please show me "all the organisations (the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs) has on its website". Where are they? What are you referring to? Can you send us a link?

I'm not going to repeat my previous advice to you again.

But here we are again with you accusing me with these same amibguous conspiracy theories of having or pushing some "Turkish nationalist POV".

Now I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.

How am I somehow "editing based off of a Turkish nationalist POV"?

How am I "trying to make the point of "Greek bad, Turkey good"?

These are very serious accusations.

Back them up.

I've given you ample advice before. I've been civil. I've told you to focus on content instead of attacking other editors. You've ignored it all citing, and I quote: "I'm not reading your rant" "I havent read your spam before, im not reading it now" etc

That is not a good sign...

Add onto that what you're doing here...

Now I also think any editor would be inclined to agree that you yourself, whether intentional or not, are in-fact pushing your own opinions and feigning civility while going on a crusade against anything that you see as making EOKA or Greece look bad.

That again is not a good sign...

And yes, there is ample evidence to support that.

Finally, anyone's opinions aside, ignoring whatever opinions you or I or anyone else here may or may not have, I did make reference to the "Greek coup d'etat" of 1974 which, even according to Greece's highest court gave "Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers... the right to fulfil her obligations", and I'm not going to run around doing your research for you. Seeing as you already know so much. Maybe you've "already seen that" too?

As you have been told before:

Stop providing points of view, not facts. Stop making conspiracy theory accusations. Stop making personal attacks. Stop expressing opinions rather than improving main space content. Stop attacking the editor instead of trying to take a look at the content. And stop inventing problems and criteria to impose on edits that you have a personal issue with but that are clearly fine to be made. Nargothronde (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you say buddy. SirBlueWhite (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You have shown lots of sources that say that EOKA has been called terrorists, but you have as yet not shown a single source that shows that it has been designated as a terrorist group. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability we need sourcing that shows that calling EOKA terrorist is not just rhetoric. We have seen the sources, but we do not agree that they say that EOKA has been officially declared a terrorist organization. Repeating the same sources does not help your argument. You would need a reference to the specific act or decision by a relevant body, either to the act itself or to a reliable secondary source that refers to the act. So a Times article that says something like "at yesterday's Government meeting EOKA was declared a terrorist group according to the So-and-so Act" would be sufficient. Sjö (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have also fixed the others. SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Response to third opinion request (Dispute about the reliability of sources):

Request declined as more than two editors are involved. Please follow the next steps in the dispute resolution process, such as mediation, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or a request for comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

U.S Pentagon from Iran

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/07/irans-parliament-designates-pentagon-official-terrorist-organization

I'm just saying that since the Quds force, the Russian government and the Iranian revolutionary guard are mentioned in the article, it should also be included under that logic (besides, this article does not make exceptions with organizations declared by Iran). 186.32.216.28 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irans-news-parliment-approves-bill-designating-u-s-military-terrorist-organizations-qassem-soleimani/ By the way they also did the same with the US Army. 186.32.216.28 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does mean that the above should be included, unless the designation has been repealed by later bills. Sjö (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And I see now that it is already included. Sjö (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DECOR and terror group emblems/flags

In the context of the recent removal of the flags of countries under MOS:DECOR, I wish to ask what editors think about removing the emblems/flags of terror groups as well? --Minoa (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this request is still active and the opinion of other editors on my proposal to remove emblems/flags of terror groups, under MOS:DECOR. I cannot proceed with this proposal without consensus, as the article mentions terror groups associated with a few contentious topics, such as the Israel/Palestine conflict and the war in Ukraine. --Minoa (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that the flags do serve a useful purpose here, both as a navigational aid and to improve understanding. The flags often give an inkling of the allegiance and alliances of the organization, for instance it is easy to find the organizations that use the flag of IS. Other flags designs like that of the Three Percenters or the Promised Day Brigade give information about the location or alignment of the organization; information that is not apparent from its name. Sjö (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

How can we achieve the same effect without flags? I am asking this because a significant number of entries, such as those for Hamas and the Wagner Group, are unable to have flags due to WP:NFCC rules. --Minoa (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is Hamas and its military branch divided?

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are just the military forces of Hamas, there is no reason to divide from it's military branch. Same with Islamic State, and it's military force, there is no reason to divide it from it's military force. Most, if not all, that regonize the second as terrorist also regocnize the first one. דוב (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Some countries, e.g. the UK, made a distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas [1]. This seems to have changed and it seems that most countries do not make that distinction anymore. It makes sense to have separate items if there is just one country that designats only the al-Qassam Brigades but not Hamas as a terrorist organization. But that does not seem to be the case as of now. Sjö (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

From a UK Home Office policy paper Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations, updated 15 September 2023: "Hamas IDQ was proscribed by the UK in March 2001. At the time it was HM government’s assessment that there was a sufficient distinction between the so called political and military wings of Hamas, such that they should be treated as different organisations, and that only the military wing was concerned in terrorism. The government now assess that the approach of distinguishing between the various parts of Hamas is artificial. Hamas is a complex but single terrorist organisation." Mcljlm (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, some countries make this distinction. This is fairly common and also happens with other organizations in the list when there are political and armed branches that may have a different legal treatment. MarioGom (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Which countries still distinguish between them? Mcljlm (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I've started verifying and updating the latest listings. Comprehensive updates to this article are rare, so several listings are usually outdated. MarioGom (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Only Japan remains to be verified. Someone would need to find the latest listing, which is a bit tricky since they regularly publish it in PDF format, and translate as needed. Latest PDF listed in the article is from 2021, and I would be surprised if there isn't more recent update. MarioGom (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Confusion over the criteria for inclusion

With Russia's decision to consider the LGBT community "extremist", and the general lack of international consensus on the definition, the criteria for listing of organisations is becoming increasingly confusing, and also as subjective as the list of secret police organizations.

I have already stated in the lead that some entries are politically motivated, but sometimes I have a feeling that some should be separated or excluded if they are obviously nowhere close to being one, such as Meta Platforms (despite all their flaws).

I think we need to reconsider the criteria for inclusion of entries, or the way we present this article to account for the politically or ideologically motivated entries. --Minoa (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

All entries are politically motivated. Political: "relating to the government or public affairs of a country." Even stopping Al-Qaeda or labelling it "terrorist" is a political agenda of governments. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

As you mentioned, there is no international consensus on the definition of "extremist". The criteria on this article is that a group is designated terrorist by a government. Koopinator (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a useful suggestion. Basically what you are proposing is that Wikipedia editors should determine whether the designation is politically motivated and then exclude it from this list or put it in a separate section. That would lead to lengthy discussions and would include a lot of WP:OR, since it is unlikely there are neutral reliable sources that we can use to determine which designations are politically motivated. Also, I agree with Koopinator that all the items on the list are politically motivated. Sjö (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand: I think I may be unintentionally viewing the article from a wrong angle, not realising that the context of the article is a lot more intricate and something that I cannot simplify without creating WP:OR complications. --Minoa (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I just removed this entry. The source itself specifies that it was designated as extremist organization. See List of organizations designated as terrorist or extremist by Russia. Both terrorist and extremist designation are distinct concepts, and have separate official lists in Russia. The inclusion criteria of this article is very clear: organizations officially designated as terrorist. Other countries also have an "extremist" designation process separate from "terrorist" designation, such as Germany. We have never included these here. MarioGom (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way, adding or removing these entries should have nothing to do with their designation being "politically motivated" or not. Terrorist designations are often highly political, but that is beyond the scope of the article. The question here is: "does country X officially designates Y as terrorist?" Not "do I think the designation makes any sense?". MarioGom (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this topic due to the recent edit war about UNRWA. Apparently I need to point out that this is a list of groups that are officially designated as terrorist groups. It is not a list of "groups that Wikipedia editors consider terrorists". Both WP:NPOV and WP:OR dictate that editors should not exclude sourced content because the content displeases them. Sjö (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The future of this article

I apologize in advance for the long wall of text.

I have made extensive updates to this list from time to time. Whenever I come back here, the state of the article seems appalling to me (and I'm not satisfied after editing it either). As national terrorist lists proliferate, both in number of entries, and number of lists, it only gets worse. Here is a summary of the problems I see, and some ideas to solve or mitigate them.

The problems

• Cluttered table in the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee section. This table is really cluttered, because we kept adding every country that re-publishes the list. UN member states observe the sanctions list even if they do not re-publish the UN list, some just refer to the UN list in their legislation without the need of re-publishing. What information does listing these provide to the reader? Not much. In fact, it might be misleading, as it might give the impression that only the listed countries officially observe these designations. I think there are only a handful of cases where some country has their own autonomous designation overlapping with the UN (it happens with the US, the EU, or Russia).
• Always outdated. One could argue that this happens to the per-country standalone lists, but at least these have clearer indications on when the list was last updated, making it clearer to the reader how stale or fresh the information is. It probably doesn't help that checking and editing a large table mixing several sources is quite cumbersome.
• Designated entities are sometimes hard to align. Some designators list Islamic State, broadly construed, while others list each branch independently. When an organization is restructured (renamed, splitted, merged), some designators maintain a single designated entity with aliases, while others designate some or all branches independently. Hamas vs Al-Qassam Brigades or Hezbollah are cases that have been discussed frequently in this talk page, and they are from being the most complex. This alignment is sometimes hard to solve in a single list without misleading the reader or incurring in original research or improper synthesis.
• It is becoming a monster. If we add the full UN list (it is pretty incomplete right now!), update those countries that have greatly expanded their list (e.g. Bahrain), or incorporate some lists that are currently poorly covered (e.g. Israel), then we're probably adding a few hundred more entries to the main table.
• It conflates significantly different methodologies. Not every terrorist designation means the same. Even in the same country, like the US, there can be multiple types of designations. When we conflate all of them here, we are not necessarily contributing to clarifying the topic.
• We are not able to sustain a coherent inclusion criteria. Some editors keep adding back entries for extremist designations, which are distinct from terrorist designations in some countries. Some keep adding back entries because a news piece talks about a conviction. It is unclear how we treat countries that occasionally decree an ad hoc terrorist designation but have no list or specific listing/delisting process. It is not just a problem of lack of editor effort. This article is inherently hard to keep coherent.

Possible solution

I think a course for the future could be moving listings to specific lists (or sections), and make the present article focus on the overall topic of terrorist designation lists:

• Articles like ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee or List of organizations designated as terrorist by Canada provide a good venue to have full lists, properly contextualized with details that are relevant to their own process, an introduction on how that list works, etc. Countries where a standalone article is not appropriate can still have a section in the "Terrorism in [Country]" article.
• Inclusion criteria for each individual article can be much more clear.
• Updating is far easier, as one can compare the current and updated list one to one.
• There is no entry alignment problem across lists.
• Beyond being a list of lists, the current article has room for broader content on terrorist designation. There is quite some academic literature on the topic.

Note that I'm not proposing rushing any drastic change. I would rather work first on getting per-country articles in good shape, start expanding this article with the academic literature, and only remove the current listings on this article when split articles provide equal or better coverage.

What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Some other possibilities:

• Do not list individual countries in the UN table when the listing does not come from an autonomous list. That is, when it is just a re-published list.
• In the second table, list only organizations designated by, at least, two sovereign states.

MarioGom (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA being added as "terror" organization

As we all know UNRWA is an official United Nations organization which concentrates on providing humanitarian aid to people in Gaza. In the last day or so Israel in it's over 1 year reported genocide of Gaza has decided to label UNRWA as a "terrorist organization" in order to ban it from operating within Israel and therefore by default Gaza in order to prevent humanitarian food aid reaching starving civilians. This DOES NOT MEAN ISRAEL ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN GOOD FAITH THE UNRWA IS AN ACTUAL TERROR ORGANIZATION. It knows it is not and does not believe it is.

The situation occurring right now in Palestine and Israel is an extremely fluid one and developing on a daily basis. It is entirely possible that this move will be reversed, as it is patently obvious to all nations on earth that the official United Nations organizations are definitely NOT terror organizations in any way shape or form and it is purely a stunt that Israel is pulling to prevent aid reaching a dying population at this exact point in Northern Gaza especially as it is being actively ethnically cleansed.

Being that 1. this situation is still a developing one as at Oct/Nov 2024 and 2. Israeli operatives are seeking to seriously abuse the Wikipedia website to give this stunt public credibility and force public opinion against the United Nations organs trying to do their job in an active war environment so therefore hijacking the Wikipedia site AND MISUSING IT as a war propaganda tool and 3. It is patently obvious that the United Nations is not a terror organization, I strongly suggest that this entry of UNRWA is removed from the list and kept off it at least for the interim time until things have settled down and we know how it pans out in order to prevent Wikipedia being seriously misused.

This is not a normal 'X country said Y is a terror organization' situation, it is a fluid and changing situation where people are trying to abuse this site as a war propaganda tool and as such it needs special consideration. As such, my recommendation is that the UNRWA is held-off from being added to this list for a period of a few months until the dust settles and more information becomes publicly available rather than just one or two websites reporting it only a day or two after it is reported happening. If it still passes the test after this, the listing of the UNRWA (no matter how ridiculous it is) can be included on the page but this will avoid Wikipedia being used AS AN ACTIVE WAR PROPAGANDA TOOL which is not it's intention and never was. Taurusthecat (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I resent your accusation that I and others are Israeli operatives hijacking this article. Do you really want to stand by that statement?

Apparently I need to point out that this is a list of groups that are officially designated as terrorist groups. It is not a list of "groups that Wikipedia editors consider terrorists". Both WP:NPOV and WP:OR mean that editors should not exclude sourced content because the content annoys them. Sjö (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes but they are designated a terrorist organisation by a country committing a genocide so not exactly a true reflection of the truth when you consider this political decision is designed to assist in the starvation of another ethnic group. On top of that the law doesn’t take effect for 90 days by which time the US may have intervened so please explain your over zealous approach so we can judge your character on this matter. Rgds 2A02:8084:2000:6A00:155F:B3A0:6D37:BAAB (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Couple things, the final version of the two Israeli laws did not designate UNRWA as a terrorist organization, see UNRWA and Israel for the latest refs. Also, non EC editors are not permitted to engage in discussion of AI/IP matters. Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do NOT delete topics on the talk page - first and final warning

The topic UNRWA being added as "terror" organization was deleted from the talk page, ironic that I was raising the issue of Wikipedia being seriously abused as a war propaganda tool and the talk topic was then deleted to hide the conversation so others are none the wiser. DO NOT DELETE this topic or the following one I am putting back from the talk page, they MUST remain here until it has been fully discussed and if necessary moderated with a option of having the page locked from editing.

I am now putting the topic back on the talk page. Do NOT delete that topic or this one, this is your first and final warning. Taurusthecat (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA being added as "terror" organization

As we all know UNRWA is an official United Nations organization which concentrates on providing humanitarian aid to people in Gaza. In the last day or so Israel in it's over 1 year reported genocide of Gaza has decided to label UNRWA as a "terrorist organization" in order to ban it from operating within Israel and therefore by default Gaza in order to prevent humanitarian food aid reaching starving civilians. This DOES NOT MEAN ISRAEL ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN GOOD FAITH THE UNRWA IS AN ACTUAL TERROR ORGANIZATION. It knows it is not and does not believe it is.

The situation occurring right now in Palestine and Israel is an extremely fluid one and developing on a daily basis. It is entirely possible that this move will be reversed, as it is patently obvious to all nations on earth that the official United Nations organizations are definitely NOT terror organizations in any way shape or form and it is purely a stunt that Israel is pulling to prevent aid reaching a dying population at this exact point in Northern Gaza especially as it is being actively ethnically cleansed.

Being that 1. this situation is still a developing one as at Oct/Nov 2024 and 2. Israeli operatives are seeking to seriously abuse the Wikipedia website to give this stunt public credibility and force public opinion against the United Nations organs trying to do their job in an active war environment so therefore hijacking the Wikipedia site AND MISUSING IT as a war propaganda tool and 3. It is patently obvious that the United Nations is not a terror organization, I strongly suggest that this entry of UNRWA is removed from the list and kept off it at least for the interim time until things have settled down and we know how it pans out in order to prevent Wikipedia being seriously misused.

This is not a normal 'X country said Y is a terror organization' situation, it is a fluid and changing situation where people are trying to abuse this site as a war propaganda tool and as such it needs special consideration. As such, my recommendation is that the UNRWA is held-off from being added to this list for a period of a few months until the dust settles and more information becomes publicly available rather than just one or two websites reporting it only a day or two after it is reported happening. If it still passes the test after this, the listing of the UNRWA (no matter how ridiculous it is) can be included on the page but this will avoid Wikipedia being used AS AN ACTIVE WAR PROPAGANDA TOOL which is not it's intention and never was.

Originally published 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Taurusthecat (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)