Talk:List of designated terrorist groups

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)

If they are not designated by Israel as a terrorist group then they should not be in this article. This has only to do with sourcing and not any of the other arguments that are unrelated to Wikipedia policies. I noticed that Al-Jazeera in an earlier version of the article referenced in UNWRA and Israel wrote that Israel's new law did designate UNWRA as a terrorist group, but Al-Jazeera has now amended that article to say that the did not. That means that I no longer think that the UNWRA content should be included in the list. Sjö (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Taurusthecat, you do not have the extended confirmed privilege. That means, per WP:ARBECR, you can only post simple, straightforward edit requests. Your comment above does not meet that requirement. I have left the standard welcome messages on your talk page. Please read them and comply with the rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And I have reverted the removal so that extended confirmed editors can decide what should happen to it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice to be excluded from this on a pure technicality on how many edits I've ever made (I've had this Wikipedia edit account for more than 10 years though) and disregarding my expertise in this area, but it is what it is. Nice play. Regardless of all this, I expect this to be discussed properly in the coming weeks and not just ignored/forgotten about (and I will continue to monitor it) or I'll move it up the chain, purely because it is so rife for abuse at the current time by interested parties and my only desire is to prevent this. Taurusthecat (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just a rule. It has no dependency on what you want or expect. It applies to you just as it would apply to any other non-extended confirmed editor. It is intended to reduce the amount of abuse. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well we're both on the same page regarding wishing this page not to be abused so that's a start. I'll state here that I have stated my reasons above (which are still valid regardless of the rules you quote) and the other editor has already stated they no longer believe this listing should remain. I will wait and see how the rest of the conversation goes. Taurusthecat (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier's information probably settled the matter. One way to look at the extended confirmed restrictions is that they are a kind of apartheid-lite, setting apart editors into 2 classes with different rights, and they give people an appreciation of what it is like to have your freedom of movement and expression suppressed by an oppressive regime. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol. There is a way out tho, 500 decent edits. And the main idea is to let newer editors learn the ropes in less contentious areas. That's what they should do, get 500 edits in less contentious areas and then cause trouble contribute in the CTs after that if they want. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to be snarky. Taurusthecat (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm letting you participate in the discussion, whachu complainin about? Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvement of layout

I have suggestions for improving the layout.

1.Add flags for countries and international organizations mentionned as in the French language version : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_groupes_d%C3%A9sign%C3%A9s_comme_terroristes

2.Classify each group considered as terrorist in alphabetical order.

3.For countries considering a group as terrorist. Arrange in alphabetical order the part concerning this group.

4.For international organizations considering a group as terrorist. Add these before the countries and sort them in alphabetical order.

I don't think I'll ever have time to take care of it.

Fictitious example without flags for simplicity :
Groupe A - European Union , United Nations , Canada , United States
Groupe B - African Union , European Union , Gulf Cooperation Council , United Nations , Australia , Canada , India , New-Zealand , Russia , United Kingdom , United States
Groupe C - France , Japan , Tanzania Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)