Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"Terrorist Exclusion List" which is "no longer updated" since 2004

See http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm The page says "This list is no longer updated by the Bureau of Counterterrorism." Is this list still in use in law? At least we should add those organizations as "listed in the past". Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


UK part of the EU

Last time I checked, the UK was a part of the EU. If the lists differ among the 2 entities (I mean, they could, with all the red tape in the EU), any explanation why? 70.54.202.152 (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK is (probably) the least interested in the EU of all EU nations - the UK has traditionally seen itself closer allied to America than to the rest of Europe. Also, the EU is fundamentally a customs union, with security and foreign policy being of little importance. Further, as a permanent member of the security council, the UK has a large global presence even without the EU. I would argue that the list needs to be expanded to take account of terrorist organisations designated by France, Brazil, etc etc... Y'know, P5 of the Security Council and the few countries aiming for P5 status - India, Germany, Brazil.... Pascal (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem with this. If Wales decided to maintain their own list, we would include it too. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UCK

Both Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës (Kosovo Liberation Army) and Ushtria Çlirimtare Kombëtare (National Liberation Army) are missing from this list. KLA was classified as terrorist organisation till mid 1998, for NLA I'm not certain but I think it was declassified somewhere around official recognition of Republic Macedonia as such instead of FYR Macedonia, I think that would be 2006. Also both were recognized as terrorist organizations by US and EU.

Source? // Liftarn (talk)
 Done --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing some groups

Japanese Red Army, Red Army Faction, Revolutionary Cells etc. if these doesnt fit the criteria there should be a seperate list then.

I will be happy to add them when you find them in a government-issued list of terrorist organizations. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Governments only, POV

The word "terrorist" is subjective, since killing civilians and causing widespread emotional disturbance in an attempt to win hearts and minds is not sufficient to be named a terrorist, whereas a discussion of the motivations of those who take up arms is sufficient when the politically incorrect conclusions are reached, the name itself of the page expresses a certain POV. Not sure how to rename it, but I think it would be profitable to try to address that question. Do any of these governments maintain a lit of terrorist groups: Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, the Koreas, Greece, Iceland, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Columbia, ... ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

Possibly list of groups designated as terrorist by Western Governments? (or "by some Western Governments, Dominica, and the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, and Nauru") ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

Please understand how this article has come about. This is an attempt to have a more NPOV listing, compared to previous experience general listing of 'terrorist' organizations (which was a pov nightmare). The criteria is that a state body officially labels an organization and that there is a verifiable reference to it. If you have any more references to make the listing more global, feel free to contribute. Personally, I don't think any of the states you list or at least not most of them maintain such listings. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090107_15 Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

EU - Al Qaeda

A tick has recently been added, but the referenced document, while a solid document itself, only says "The EU mechanism for designation of terrorists and terrorist organisations other than Al-Qaeda [...]". What do you think? Is the tick justified by this reference? Anyone knows a better text? Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Military wing designated => Whole organization designated?

Australia designates Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades (military wing of Hamas) and Hizballah's External Security Organisation as terrorist. Should we consider that Australia designates Hamas and Hizballah themselves as terrorist? This is what this edit assumes. Do you think it is the right thing to do, or could we present the information differently, for instance as two different rows? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was the one who put that edit in. I didn't think it would be an issue, but if it is, I'm fine with your second option (if you include military as second row, make sure to put "confirmed" for all countries that confirm the whole organization, even if it's in the 1st row) OR with keeping 1 row and adding it somewhere in parentheses next to "confirmed" for the country. --Activism1234 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Australia does not designate Hamas or Hezballah as terrorist organisations, only their military wings. Wayne (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That was stated above. I have an issue with the newest edit by WLRoss. He completely ignored coming to this talk page, and blanketed removed three orgs from Australia, even though their military wing is designated, rather than specify that their military wing is designated and not entire organization. --Activism1234 13:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? My edit comment noted the reason for the edit, the reference supports the edit and I came to this Talk page and let you know. There is no dispute...Hamas and Hezballah are excluded from Australia's list of terrorist organisations and their military wings are already listed in the article with ticks in the correct columns. Wayne (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying it. There is still an issue though. For example, Australia is listed as confirmed for Hezbollah External Security Organization, but none of the other groups that list the entire Hezbollah as terrorist organization are listed here. If they list the whole org as terrorist, then they would also consider the military wing as terrorist. That said, I suggest to either add in all the confirmed for whichever nations classify the entire group as terrorist, or to simply get rid of these additional boxes and for example under Hezbollah put a confirmed box for Australia but specify in that box "Only military wing." What do you think? Otherwise it seems misleading, and I also prefer the second choice since many people may not necessarily realize that Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is just Hamas' military wing (unless maybe Hamas is written in brackets next to it...) That's why I'm on this talk page, I'm open to a lot of options and I want to know how other people feel and recommend, or if they disagree completely. --Activism1234 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I quite like the way WLRoss created a second line for the Hamas subgroup. For countries that do not make the disctinction, we could simply merge the two cells, example here. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

East Turkistan Islamic Movement

East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) has been added even though it is NOT in the FTO list. It is, however, talked about in this testimony: http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/111/kan061609.pdf in the middle of page 1, saying: "The Bush Administration’s decision in 2002 to designate one Uighur-related organization called the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement” (ETIM) as a terrorist organization" but they do NOT cite any reference for that. Then the testimony goes one saying "in 2004, the Secretary of State also included ETIM in the "Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL)" (to exclude certain foreign aliens from entering the United States, under Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56)).", which is quite suspicious: the Terrorist Exclusion List designates individuals, as far as I know, not organizations. This TEL document would be very interesting to read, anyone has an URL?

In brief, I think a testimony is not a solid enough reference, even though it is found on the foreignaffairs.house.gov web server. I suggest we stick with the FTO list, and the TEL list if it is found to also list organizations. So I remove the ETIM line for now, until someone finds the TEL document. What do you all think? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the TEL list: [1] & [2]. Added back.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Those references seem perfect, thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Lehi Irgun

These are legitimate additions, and should not be removed without discussion. Their addition does not represent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.141.17 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the news references given show it as being officially recognized. And it was in the middle of a lot of obvious vandalism. noq (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Here is one source for both groups:[3].TMCk (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Merely restoring the offending version does nothing to show it is officially designated. Please do not do that unless you add sources showing official designation. noq (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an empty UN column?

In the table is an empty column to show designations by the UN. It's empty. Why not remove the clutter? --Duncan (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be empty - I believe that there ARE organisations designated by the UN as 'terrorist' (or at least have been in the past). It still needs to be fixed, of course, but I'd say it'd be better to leave it in until it can be filled. 94.175.131.5 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some references are 404

Should find the new official pages for: Canada, Turkey, Russia. Anyone knows where they have been moved? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

al-Qaeda

Hello. Am I the only one who thinks al-Qaeda branches doesnt need to be separately mentioned in the list? If al-Qaeda as an organization is listed as a "terrorist group" it makes sanse that all of their branches are listed as well doesnt it? So it looks strange in the table that the European Union for example lists al-Qaeda as a terrorist group, but it doesnt lists al-Qaeda in Iraq or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb just because we dont have reliable sources that would confirm that. I see no point in listing individual branches of certain organizations. Ratipok (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

We list things exactly as the country express them, so if CountryA lists group1 and CountryB only lists group1branchα then we have to list both group1 and group1branchα. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then what about this one. Two paragrahps, one for Hezbollah and the other Hezbollah External Security Organisation, while both links to the same article Hezbollah. Ratipok (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I agre with you, the wikilink from Hezbollah External Security Organization to Hezbollah should be removed. Or even better: an article Hezbollah External Security Organization should be created separately. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article administration

OK, so I see that User:Nicolas1981 is somewhat an "administrator" of this article and apparently solely decides on what is needed and what not for the content (promptly deleting that which doesnt meet his standard). I have some problems with that and will try to resolve them on this talk page first.

  • Why arent links from reliable world media enough to include an organization on the list? Nicholas1981 maintains that an official link from the government is needed. Governments that have previously rejected certain groups as terrorist and now maintain a close relationship with them (or have even armed them later on) have removed such [official] citations from their official websites, for obvious reasons, and are impossible to find. Does that means those organizations where never labelled as "terrorist"? I see no problem with verifiable citations from important global media included in this article and almost every single wiki article about war, politics, governments etc. uses them. I agree, however, that citiations used must be working.
  • Furthermore, another pro why media citations should be used in the lists is the fact that terrorism is not something that began in the "modern era" and dates back decades if not centuries. Maintaining that we need official sources from world governments to include an organization on the list simply means that we wont be able to include everything on this list.
  • Nicholas also maintains that dates must be included in the second table (past terrorist organizations). Again I disagree and feel that a simple note that an organization was once designated as "terrorist" is enough. If a date from when to when on organization was labelled "terrorist" by the respective nation is that important it could simply be included at the end of the article in a new section (footnotes; wiki example -> [4]). Another reason why I believe dates arent needed is because the majority of them wherent even full dates (example of a typical date used in the table -> ? to 2012). Ratipok (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not an administrator, and Wikipedia does not have a concept of "article owners", as you probably know.
A few years ago, we did not have this requirement, and this article was a mess in constant edit warring. That's because world media says everything and its contrary, and every group on earth has been called terrorist at least once. So, all together we switched to this more down-to-earth, easily-verifiable requirement. It's not just me, a lot of users have been involved and are still lurking around.
I agree with you for past designations. And actually, that's why media references are accepted for the "past designations" table. Date is not stricly required, but if the source indicates the date, better include it, right? Even if it only is the year, it is precious information. Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Cite Error

Hello, I saw a cite error in the reference part which I couldn't help. I request someone with enough knowledge to fix that error. Thank you ! Subasharavindan (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

India list goes 404

http://mha.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=292 Anyone knows where is the India list now? Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

http://mha.nic.in/BO Sean.hoyland - talk 12:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

CIA as a terrorist organization

It says that the Central Intelligence Agency is considered a terrorist organization by Iran. I really do not see how the CIA is considered a terrorist organization unless it has done state terrorism in Iran.

Battlesnake1 (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean. Are you asking why Iran designate the CIA as a terrorist organization ? If so, it's described in the cited CNN source.[5] Sean.hoyland - talk 04:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, it is designated and various states have their reasons. We merely citefact and let the reader ecide the rest.
Don't know )(or care) how uyou personally don't see it.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Iran

Is the information on Iran real? I am sure Iran lists more terrorist organizations than just the CIA and the American army? I think Iran should either be updated or removed. And isn't this part of State terrorism anyway?

I agree that the Iran column is a bit sub-standard, because it is not a government reference, being instead a newspaper talking about the government reference (if we consider IRNA to Iran's official media organization).
But the fact that the designated organization is part of another government does not strike me as a signal that it should not be here, somehow. What do others think? Should we repel the part of the article that says "This listing does not include states or governmental organizations, which are considered under state terrorism"? Or should we start a similar "designation table" on the State terrorism article? Everyone's opinion is welcome! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have found the US' State Sponsors of Terrorism list. So I suggest someone create a similar table in the State terrorism article, and move Iran's designations there. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a veritable stupid response that doent need a reply.
Iran is a state just like the USA. If we are going to take one states sourced desingations as terrorist we will be taking others. The USA's designation as terrorist is just the same the other way. But I wont much bother with this idotic blinkered an dutterly stupid pov.Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I could not find the list of agencies that Iran considers to be terrorist, but it includes more than just the CIA and the American army. The People's Mujahedin of Iran is one such agency, and I have added it to the list. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thx for the effort. Min with sourcing is better than knone.Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Egypt declares Brotherhood 'terrorist group' (but its a process to add a line for everthing in the list just to add the MB here.(Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

Thanks for adding the column! Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ETA

The European Union has never supressed ETA from being a terrorist organization. The 2011 document cited in this and other article is just an update of the original list, not a new version. Please check the following link, where there exists the consolidated text. As you can see not only ETA, but also its pupper organizations are included. I proceed to remove the mistakes. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001E0931:en:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.251.7 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

References

A lot of new information has been added lately, that's great!

Please make sure to find appropriate references for any check you add.

If the country's official list of designated organization can not be found, then news articles are acceptable, but the news article really has to clearly say "Country X has designated organization Y as terrorist". An article that just says "Today in country X, organization Y has done some terrorism, and the government of X is furious" is not enough.

Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is "considered" good enough? A lot of sources say that Iran considers groups like Jundallah, Tondar and PJAK to be terrorist, but they do not use the word "designated". --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if the news article clearly says "Country X considers organization Y as terrorist", it would be enough (for countries where the official list is not available). Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifying "quote=" in references like you did is a great idea, it saves a lot of time when checking references. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of PLO image

Why was the PLO image deleted from the section about groups that were previously considered terrorist organizations? Here's the image: Source was the Wikipedia Palestine Liberation Organization article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not having non-free media rationale for this article. I've noticed a number of these non-free flag/emblems/logos removed from various article over the past year or so. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is a pity that we can't use these logos, but unfortunately that's what the current policy says: Wikipedia:NFLISTS#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. A few years ago I also spent a lot of time adding logo, just to have them removed... time is better spent checking references, or creating articles for organizations that do not have an article yet. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"This listing does not include states or governmental organizations"

The article's header says "This listing does not include states or governmental organizations".

This was added a long time ago when we had no designation rule and everyone kept wildly adding every kind of organization, designated or not. It was needed to keep things a bit more sane. But I think we don't need this restriction anymore.

If there is a relative consensus, let's remove this condition and revert this edit at the same time. I can't do it myself because it would start to look as an edit war, please someone do it if consensus.

What do you all think?

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with expanding the scope of the list to include designated governmental organisations. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why a new column for France?

Who added a column for France and why? It contains the same info as EU, plus erroneous info referencing the UK Home Office, which is non-sense. I will remove it. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Russia source server gone

http://nak.fsb.ru/nac/ter_org.htm does not seem to work anymore. Any idea where the list is hosted now? Nicolas1981 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found this archive of http://nak.fsb.ru/nac/ter_org.htm. An equivalent seems to be available at http://nac.gov.ru/document/832/edinyi-federalnyi-spisok-organizatsii-priznannykh-terroristicheskimi-verkhovnym-sudom-r.html. The listing of 19 organisations seems the same, so I've used this reference in the article. --Flexdream (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan Youth Congress

I see that there has been a bit of back and forth over the inclusion of the Tibetan Youth Congress. While it's true the state media in China often refer to it as a terrorist organization, it's not obvious, at least not to me, whether this is just name calling or whether it reflects an official designation. There are certainly reliable secondary sources out there that say that the government consider it a terrorist organization (e.g. Routledge Handbook of International Criminology) but I wonder if anyone knows how to find China's official list of designated terrorist organizations. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is an edit conflict going one, and I am part of it :-/ The best reference I could find calling Tibetan Youth Congress terrorist is a blog (translated to English by XinHua), which is not a good enough reference to let this fact stay here. "Routledge Handbook of International Criminology" is an interesting find, but not an official document. It would be great to find a definitive list, indeed. But for now no official document we have from the Chinese government designates that organization as a terrorist organization. In particular, the document cited as a reference by the recent edits is a list of organizations designated as terrorist, and does NOT include that particular organization. User:Zhannal and User:64.228.197.68, you should be aware that adding a fact together with a reference that in fact does not validates the fact is not a great thing to do... any justification? Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be included at the moment based the available evidence. I'm not even sure whether there is an official list of designated terrorist organizations at the moment. The government policy on what they regard as terrorism seems to be something of a work in progress in China as far as I can tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to reorganize

The way this list is organized only makes it possible to show the designations of a handful of countries, it should reorganized in a way that makes more inclusive. Charles Essie (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to insert more countries, no problem. If it gets too wide, we can still the long group names multiline. For instance "Supreme Military Majlis ul-Shura of the United Mujahideen Forces of Caucasus" is taking a lot of space right now because it is on a single line. So I think we can easily insert 6 more countries. But you're right, we should start thinking about what could be done when we get like 25 countries... The usual way to handle this is to split the table into into 2 tables. By the way, we need to sort the columns alphabetically... Doing it manually would be a pain and error-prone, so I'll write a script to do it. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I reorganized the column. I actually wrote a script to do this efficiently, we can use the same script in the future if needed. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Australia reference is 404

Anyone knows the new page for Australia? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkey too. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

The file File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

EU reference is 404

I can't find the EU list anymore on EUR-Lex. Anyone knows where it is? Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

THIS FBI source says "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." While it is a document written and hosted by the FBI, I don't think it is an official designation, but it is borderline, so I just thought I would post it here. What do you think? Anyway it would belong to the "former organizations" table. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. However, it's not listed here. We must go by the official up to date list. If you can provide the 2000-2001 official list, it would certainly be worth consideration.Worldedixor (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

KKK

I apologize if this has been covered before, but why isn't the Klu Klux Klan included on this list? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Although many of it's activities can be considered terrorism, it is not a designated terrorist organization listed here by the state department. Unless it is listed there or is listed as a terrorist organization by another one of the governments then it can't be listed. SantiLak (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. That link lists foreign terrorist organizations. Is there a similar list for domestic terrorist groups? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe so because although the FBI does maintain a list of most wanted Domestic terrorists (US Citizens who committed terrorists acts in the US usually), it does not maintain a list of domestic terror groups. It would also be difficult to compile a list and remain neutral because as there is no official government source to say what a domestic terrorist group is and even if most people agree that for example the KKK is a domestic terrorist group, it couldn't be listed because it lacks the designation. SantiLak (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you know any country that has inserted KKK in one of their official lists of terrorist organizations, please let us know. Solid references needed. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations → List of organizations designated as terrorist by other organizations – NPOV. They don't designate themselves as being terrorist. Derianus (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment In Wikipedia's fixation for journalistic etc. "reliable sources" we might then label a far wider range of organisations as designated terrorist by the media.
Support move to List of government designated terrorist organizations, List of governmentally designated terrorist organizations, List of terrorist organizations as designated by governments, List of terrorist organizations, so described by governments, List of terrorist organizations by government designation, List of terrorist organizations, by government designation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
See also Governmental lists of cults and sects re format of word order. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to as it makes the name too complicated. The term "designated" already makes it clear that it is relative. Also, why do you write "organisation" with a z? Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose. I agree with Katy Gallaghon that the "designated" in the title makes it clear the listed organizations aren't calling themselves terrorists. Also, the proposed title is long and unwieldy without appreciable offsetting benefits. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reasons as Katy Gallaghon, designated is clear and the proposed title is too long and quite unnecessary. - SantiLak (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can this NCTC.gov page be considered an official designation?

Someone has added a checkmark for HIG - USA using http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/hig.html as a reference.

It is a webpage written by a governmental anti-terrorism entity, but it does not say that HIG is terrorist, it just say that HIG performs attacks. Is it a valid designation?

What do you all think? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It could be but HIG is already designated and listed in the article so I think that is kind of redundant. SantiLak (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Redundant? The HIG - USA checkmark was not there before. It was added with this reference. What is the other reference for it? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well HIG's leader is a designated foreign terrorist but the organization is only designated as a group of concern by the State dept so I don't really see what the solution would be because it isn't technically a designated FTO but it's leader is a designated terrorist and it is a group of concern. I think some other opinions are needed on the matter. SantiLak (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not enough indeed. The whole group has to be designated, not just its leader. Removed, thanks for the feedback! Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Israeli, Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror"

The following is largely a cut and paste of text presented at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Israel, that I have seen, makes declarations about organisations in two significant ways. They can make a declaration of to say that an organisation is an organisation "as a terrorist organisation" (הכרזה כארגון טרור - "as an organisation of terror") and they can make a declaration to say that an organisation is a "Unlawful organization" (התאחדות בלתי מותרת - an "association/united group, not, allowed"). I have gone a bit into the etymology of the terms but regular translation simply relates to declarations of terrorist organisations and declarations of unlawful/illegal organisations and Israel made the second of these declarations in relation to 'SIL.

I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" ("Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror") and then by choosing the download the immediately presented link with address shown as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls . This link has the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of, Announcements - Office, [of] Security, (Ministry of Defence).

Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...

Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:

3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon.

A fellow editor, P123ct1, developed this version of the Israeli information.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for finding this and for the research! I have replaced the Google URL by a more direct URL: http://www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and-Security/Fighting_terrorism/Documents/teror16.11.xls I don't see anything when I click on P123ct1's Google Translate URL above, probably a Google Translate problem? Apparently column E מהות ההכרזה/צו is "The essence of the declaration / order" indeed. "Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror" sounds like what this Wikipedia article is about, don't hesitate to add the 10 of them to the article, even if the group does not have a Wikipedia article yet. "Declaration of an unlawful association" is not a terrorist designation, so it does not make a valid designation, even though many well-known names have this classification. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It may be of interest to see the groups that Israel has declared as organisations of terror. They don't seem to be organisations that directly commit atrocities themselves but the list is about designations and the like, not interpretations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources by Country

Please assist in cleaning up Talk Page and add below:

United States

The list is rather short, do the old sources still "check out?" | http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm , also http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

US Terrorist Exclusion List: Is it really a designation as terrorist?

Among others, the US TEL list contains companies like Bank Al Taqwa Ltd and Al-Shifa Honey Press for Industry and Commerce. I don't think those are terrorist organizations themselves.

Any group can be added to the TEL list if it "provides material support to further terrorist activity". There are other criteria, for instance a group can also be added if it "plans a terrorist activity", but unfortunately the list does not say on which criteria each entry was added.

So I think the TEL list is not a list of terrorist organizations, it is rather a list of organizations that help terrorist organization or are otherwise affiliated with terrorism. Even though the TEL list also contains organizations with dangerous-sounding names like "Anarchist Faction for Overthrow", the US is not calling them terrorists directly.

What do you all think about it? Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is said that Terrorist Exclusion List includes organization which:
  • commits or incites to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
  • prepares or plans a terrorist activity;
  • gathers information on potential targets for terrorist activity; or
  • provides material support to further terrorist activity.
Bank Al Taqwa Ltd and Al-Shifa Honey Press for Industry and Commerce belong to "provides material support to further terrorist activity".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You are totally right. Now, the question is: Can we say XYZ has been designated as terrorist by the USA because XYZ is on the TEL list? I think not, because XYZ could be just providing material support. Saying "XYZ is on the TEL list because of criteria #1" would be original research. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments:

1. The US State Departmenat compiles a list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (at http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm), which is updated as of today Sept 21, 2012. The TEL list you refer to above (at http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm) is dated December 29, 2004. I think these date facts make the question above ("US Terrorist Exclusion List: Is it really a designation as terrorist?") a moot point.

2. The FBI also compiles its own list. It is called the (domestic) Terror Watch List. I cannot show it you because it is classified (meaning, I cannot get to it either!). But see this HERE.

Hope these comments help.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

I think that we can include them in the chart of terrorist organizations, but next to the check for America write in parentheses "designated under the TEL list" or something like that. While Al-Shifa and the bank fall under providing material support, the list does include groups like the Lord's Resistance Army or Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, all of which are clearly terrorist and not just material support. --Jethro B 04:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - Reading Mercy's comments, I agree that using a source from 2004 isn't great. A lot of things could've changed. I recommend just sticking to the most recent 2012 version or one of the ones that Mercy gave, and only resorting to the TEL list if necessary, and discussing that specific group here first. Many of those groups on the TEL list are actually in the updated 2012 non-TEL version I gave, like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, which makes the 2004 TEL version moot. --Jethro B 04:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
"discussing that specific group here first" > I suggest we establish a clear criteria. On what criteria would we decide whether a TEL organization is terrorist or not? There is a high risk of original research, unless we can find a verifiable criteria. What could be a good criteria? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
What I said before about writing in parentheses "as listed on the TEL list" would still apply. The only discussion would be whether or not that group has continued said activities since 2004. To that effect, we'd need RS references either showing a continuation of the activities or a cessation of the activities. If the group stopped these activities, then we wouldn't include them on the list, since we'd consider it outdated. Does that sound good? --Jethro B 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand

Source | http://www.police.govt.nz/service/counterterrorism/designated-terrorists.html (Previous comments regarded http://www.indiannewslink.co.nz/41624.5/index.php/homelink/new-zealand-bans-indian-mujahideen.html )

Great! Could someone please add it? It seems to be based partly on the UN list, so the appropriate UN checks should be included as well. Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/designated-entities-26-11-2014.pdf Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia

Source | http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/npd/terror.htm , In English: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fsb.ru%2Ffsb%2Fnpd%2Fterror.htm&act=url

Added! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Source | http://www.rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20141229/272886285.html Could someone please add? 193.138.219.234 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

Source | http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorgrup1.html

Added! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

European Union

I just updated the link but it was a right pain in the neck to find it.

Perhaps in future one should search for the string "updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Decision"

Anyone got any better idea? Jzlcdh (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I developed a small program that shows the evolution of the EU list: https://github.com/nicolas-raoul/ccp2001931cfsp It works on Linux, probably on Mac and Gygwin too. Open source, feel free to improve/reuse :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems interesting, but remember, I don't think we can edit the article with this as a ref, since it may not be considered RS. However, we can use RS refs, which this program may have been based on. --Activism1234 06:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You are right, the output of this program is not a valid reference. This program can only be used to get a clear chronological understanding, before contributing using the original EU references. Nicolas1981 (talk)

Kazakhstan

"Kazakhstan on October 12 released a fresh list of 12 designated terrorist groups" http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1072808.html Anyone knows where is the official decree? Is it visible online? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

"The initiative to ban the aforementioned groups came from the General Prosecutor’s office of Kyrgyzstan, which addressed competent judiciary bodies in the beginning of this year. In May, the Pervomai rayon court in Bishkek made a ruling in support of the initiative, which was later supported by the Supreme court of the country. " "The Kyrgyz government and the law-enforcement bodies have welcomed the court’s decision, which they claim laid a firm legal basis to suppress the illegal activities of these organizations." http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/1763 Anyone knows where is the official decree? Is it visible online? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Armenia

What about ASALA? -- 88.74.145.70 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They are the topic of page 57 of this MIPT document called " Patterns of Global Terrorism Report: 1989". Whether this constitutes a formal designation is debatable, but I guess it would be reasonable to add it to the "in the past" table. Thanks for the tip! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not currently listed.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
What about Ergenekon (organization), and Grey Wolves? 'Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia' - that organization is what its name suggests it is, because remember how the Turkish Terrorist Government did genocide and stole all those lands from the Armenians? A reaction group to that is not terrorism, in fact it could be described as a liberation movement. Turkey was founded on the terrorist acts of the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, and Assyrian Genocide, and continues today against oppression of Alevis and Kurds within its own borders. No other country in the world gives a damn about what Turks think is 'terrorist' because your entire country is a terrorist country, and the only reason it is not classified that way is for political reasons. That being the case, the Turkey section of the bar in the article should be removed, because 1. Turkey is not special, and 2. Turkey is a terrorist establishment itself with many skeletons in its closet. 99.7.123.116 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Twillisjr (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring important text from archive. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! What should we do for countries where we haven't found the official list yet but we suspect it exists? Should we create a special page in a Wikiproject or something? Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheka.

Don't be confused with RSFSR civil war government policy called "Red Terror" and established terrorist organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWelens (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


New list for Turkey

Only in Turkish, could someone please translate? http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/06/20140603-16-1.pdf

Quick Question

This list says that the United States does not consider the Taliban to be a terrorist organization, but the article about the United States' list of terrorist organizations says that the US does consider the Taliban to be a terrorist organization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations

So, one of these articles is wrong.

Reversalmushroom (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither are wrong, the US has designated TTP, the pakistani branch of the taliban as a terrorist organization and that is listed in this article but they don't consider the other Taliban organization from Afghanistan to be a terrorist organization. - SantiLak (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


I dont have found the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization in the list. Where it is? Bynk--195.91.43.177 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 04:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations → List of groups governmentally designated as terrorist – As noted in the last RM (which failed) "They don't designate themselves as being terrorist."
On a similar argument, your mate down the pub might "designate" a group as being "terrorist" but the article only accepts a particular form of designation. Various of Wikipedia's often erroneously described "reliable sources" may also describe or quote a group as being terrorist but, unless such designation can be traced back to an official governmental designation, it is not included in the list. Neither, as far as I have seen, are designations ascribed from comments by individual politicians which I think is a sensible policy. Any politician, however senior, may make any statement at any time, which may potentially range from nothing more than an off the cuff remark, but, I think, to save Wikipedia editors from needing to make subjectively based decisions on the validity of any statement, we currently have a good practice of typically requiring wider governmental corroboration.
On the issue of "group" vs "organisation" it can be relevant to note that "organisation" is a Subset of "group". Moreover "terrorist group" is a more widely used term of reference generally as indicated in the following searches.

The results are not as conclusive as when I solely searched on the British English spelling "terrorist organisation" but, regardless, I think that the "subset" issue still counts. It is also of use that the word "group" only has one spelling.

When Wikipedia needs to disambiguate these subjects it defines them as groups. See: Al-Mourabitoun (jihadist group), Al-Shabaab (militant group), Lehi (group). Other articles also of note are: Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, Abu Nidal Organization, East Turkestan Liberation Organization, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group.

The UN listing is more specifically of "The List established and maintained by the Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee with respect to individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida." --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: the wording of the proposal is very clunky. I don't think that "designated as terrorist" is grammatically correct when the word "group" is separated from it. Adding an "s" to terrorist to create 'terrorists' wouldn't be an acceptable solution as 'terrorists' is commonly used in reference to individuals rather than groups. Changing the title to "List of groups governmentally designated as terrorist organisations" would solve the grammar problems. However that title would also not be acceptable as the inclusion of "governmentally" would exclude the United Nations and the European Union as neither organisations are governments. This would mean that the title would have to be "List of groups designated as terrorist organisations" which isn't very different from the current title though personally I think it sounds slightly better. Ebonelm (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meaningless move. This should be dealt with in article prose, not the title. Peter Isotalo 23:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I don't think when our mates call somebody names we characterize this as "designating". Consider Evan Kohlmann, possibly the most influential non-governmental self-proclaimed terrorism experts. I doubt we would used the term "designated" if he asserted a group was a terrorist group. No, I think "designated" implies a governmental organization, with the authority to take some action, like levy sanctions, or call for arrests. Geo Swan (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need to change it, the word designated means that something is given that moniker, there is a reason that there is a separate and specific term for "self-designated" which is defined as giving it to oneself as opposed to being given by someone else. WildWikiGuy (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


List of designated terrorist organizations → List of designated terrorist groups – terrorist group is common name. See:

  • Google Ngrams" for terrorist group,terrorist groups,terrorist organization,terrorist organizations,terror group,terror organisation,terror organization and
  • Google trends for "terrorist group","terrorist groups","terrorist organization","terrorist organizations","terrorist organisations".

Various forms of designations are used:

While organisation is a subset of group, not all groups are organisations.
Use of "groups" also avoids a choice between a use of American or British English. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 10:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Malformed citations

There are many checks that have name="Israel" as a reference.

PROBLEM: They don't refer to anything, no URL or similar.

Should they all be removed because they lack a citation? Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New list for Israel

There are 372 organization so good luck: http://www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and-Security/Fighting_terrorism/Documents/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A7%20%D7%A9%D7%9C%20terror%20-%20%207-7-2015.xls Syced (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

United Nations

The United Nations designates these groups that linked with al-Qaeda as terorrist organizations. United Nations Security Council is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states, so isn't that mean member states designate them as terorrist organization as well?--Rapsar (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If the security council designates them, that means that the UN has designated them as a terrorist organization, not necessarily that the government's of its own member states have designated them as terror groups. - SantiLak (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
National Assembly of Turkey designated them as a terrorist organization (here is the source). But if we look at Canadian or American websites, we can not see the whole UN list. For example, the UN designates Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya as a terrorist, but a member of the UN, the United States does not designate it such. I don't get it.--Rapsar (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
First off on the note of Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, they were designated by the US as a terrorist organization. The UN Security council designates certain terrorist organizations due to whatever their guidelines are and after a vote on it. If some of the security council members don't designate them as a terror organization then it doesn't really matter. All that matters is if the resolution in the security council passes. - SantiLak (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It was just an example. The UN designates ISIS as an terrorist organization, so isn't that mean Iran or Russia or China designates ISIS as an terrorist organization as well?--Rapsar (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. All it means is that the UN has sanctioned that group as a terrorist organization. It means that there are UN sanctions imposed on that group that all UN members have to follow, it doesn't mean that they domestically have to designate it as a terrorist organization but that they have to comply with the UN sanctions on the group. - SantiLak (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to add that I found a broken link in this sentence: :"The United Nations does not have a general list of all terrorist organizations. Instead, it has several lists focusing on a particular context." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.34.226 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam

Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

This says they have been de-listed by the USA

[6] Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Slatersteven. I've self-reverted for that section based on that information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Japan

Japan has a bunch of banned groups here (In Japanese). I managed to translate this to English. Supreme Dragon (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of designated terrorist groups. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

North Korea question

With actions regarding the situation in North Korea, I wonder why is the Workers' Party of Korea and the Korean People's Army were never listed as terrorist organizations? Seems to me that the National Security Act of the Republic of Korea never listed many terrorist groups at all. Thoughts? 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:5195:6982:BA07:34C6 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If these groups are not listed officially, then they should not appear on this page. Syced (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

al-Aqsa Foundation / Israel

al-Aqsa Foundation was marked as terrorist-designated by Israel. This was present in the table without a citation since December 2014. I have removed it. Feel free to add it back with a proper reference. --MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

ISIL / South Korea

I have removed the designation of ISIL by South Korea in the table, since it was lacking a citation. Feel free to add it back with a reference. --MarioGom (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Korean People's Army

I'm skeptical about Korean People's Army being a designated terrorist group by South Korea. Could someone help checking the source used for this claim: [7]? --MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done The Account 1 clarified this some time ago: some countries apply sanctions to North Korea, but that is not the same as terrorist designation. It is now removed from the list. --MarioGom (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam / Australia

Listing of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from Australia used an archived source from 2001. The group is not listed in the current official list, in effect since 2002. --MarioGom (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hamas / Australia

There was some news reports that Hamas would be listed as a terrorist organization in Australia. But it is currently not listed and it looks like it never made it into the list besides Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. I have removed the listing accordingly. --MarioGom (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re-work the tables?

The way the tables are laid out makes them clunky and almost meaningless - so many empty cells! For example, in the first table, Ukraine has an entire column to indicate it has designated 2 (of 40? organisations as terrorists.

Rather than have a column for each possible conceivable country who might decide one organisation or another to be "terroristy", I would suggest a total of 4 columns: "Organisation"/"Active In" (meaning where the group actually operates, draws support)/"Active since"/"Designated terrorists by" (Here you could put country and year). I think this would be a much more useful and easier to read table than how they are currently listed.

Wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapallon (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The table makes it easy to see whether an organization is considered terrorist only by China, or by a wide array of countries, which is very useful information. At the same time, it makes it possible to see what organizations are designated by a particular country. A 4-columns presentation would make this second usage extremely inconvenient. Syced (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
So then what is, in your opinion, the condition for being added to said table? At some point there will be too many. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
There already is far too many. @Syced: If you want to organize groups by their designator, I would suggest that creation of a separate table.
As for the current one, here's a format that I came up with that would preserve all the current information and sources.
Organization Designator(s)
Abdullah Azzam Brigades  United Arab Emirates,[1][2][3]  United Kingdom,[4]  United Nations,[5]  United States[6]

References

  1. ^ "مجلس الوزراء يعتمد قائمة التنظيمات الإرهابية". Emirates News Agency (WAM). 15 November 2014. Archived from the original on 17 November 2014. Retrieved 16 November 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "UAE publishes list of terrorist organisations". Gulf News. 15 November 2014. Archived from the original on 17 November 2014. Retrieved 16 November 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "UAE cabinet endorses new list of terrorist groups". Kuwait News Agency. 15 November 2014. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 16 November 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference homeoffice was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "The List established and maintained by the 1267/1989 Committee". United Nations Security Council Committee 1267. UN.org. 14 October 2015. Archived from the original on 2 January 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ "Foreign Terrorist Organizations". State.gov. Retrieved 7 February 2017.
@Zapallon: What do you think? I'm also open to your proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is more aesthetically pleasing and readable on mobile. On the other hand, it makes it harder to perform regular checks (when you check a country, you read a country's official list and verify that all designation are found in that country's column). Syced (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand. That's why I suggested a separate table that would be organized by country instead of by group. Charles Essie (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi All (Zapallon, Charles Essie, Syced, Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) and et all I missed) a new start, same topic. The table is totally unreadable on tablet and must be horrendous on mobile. It is difficult to update and the average user will have trouble contributing and verifying. With that said (and mentioned above) it took a lot of work to get it to this stage and this was partly driven by a project related tasking, that viewed this article as an exercise to provide a standalone comprehensive and complete article (it did not and most probably never will get to the "complete" stage and should not be a standalone). The future for this article is more countries and more groups or organizations (both groups and organizations are used somewhat interchangeably throughout the article?) are added and then it will be totally unreadable and unmanageable. I believe we need to create article for each country, detailing processes and groups and individuals as per each State and then link to and from this article in a similar format as shown above (sort able by 1st column only, "Active in", and "Designaters" sorting will be redundant and not accurate anyway), to provide a readable list for groups or organizations as per article title and a separate listing for each country. Thoughts, comments queries121.99.108.78 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have modified the column header format to use vertical headers. The table is still way too wide, mainly because cells that contain many footnotes, but it is a bit more compact than before. --MarioGom (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Zapallon, Charles Essie, Syced, Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde): I have put together the full table in the new format as proposed by Charles Essie: Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/New table format proposal. I think it is much more readable, you don't need to keep track of columns while you scroll, and width adjusts better so it's mobile friendly. What do you think? Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
We loose the ability to quickly see what organizations are designated by a particular country, but I guess it is impossible to make everything perfect, and for mobile users that is indeed a much better layout, so go for it, thanks :-) Syced (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Ping me if this needs to be reverted or adjusted. I'm doing these changes with some ad hoc scripts. Regarding the ability to check specific countries, I will also miss the ability to sort by country, which was quite handy. An alternative is checking the articles for specific countries such as Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada or List of organisations banned by the Government of India. --MarioGom (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sonnenkrieg Division

What about the Sonnenkrieg Division, a British subbranch of Atomwaffen Division. Since that local branch known as Sonnenkrieg Division has been designated as a terrorist organization by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ExplodingPoPUps 18:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@ExplodingPoPUps: can you provide a source? --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The source is easy to find. There is a provided source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51618248 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplodingPoPUps (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 March 2020) (UTC)
Joining the far-right group Sonnenkrieg Divison is set to become illegal, under a proscription order to be put to MPs. That reference is previous to approval of the proscription order. Was Sonnenkrieg Divison already designated as terrorist officially? --MarioGom (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
It already is, source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869496/20200228_Proscription.pdf . ExplodingPoPUps 22:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@ExplodingPoPUps:  Done. Thanks! --MarioGom (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
No worries, you’re welcome. ExplodingPoPUps 20:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Taliban is wrongly designated

The US (US state dept) has not named the Taliban a terrorist organization. Your own source shows the mistake. Blurfian (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Done.Crboyer (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Factual error: The US has not designated the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist group. (see list published by us state dept which is current source) Blurfian (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. FYI, you don't need to make the same point twice in a row. Crboyer (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_designated_terrorist_groups/Archive_5&oldid=1136364506"