Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 6

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

This article contains many false claims of designation

Looking at the introduction it reads A number of national governments and two international organisations have created lists of organisations that they designate as terrorist. This would appear to be the most obvious criteria for inclusion, rather than hunting down quotes from any government official that use the word terrorism (since that doesn't equal formal designation). However an Iraqi editor using a variety of IPs seems to be pursuing a different course of action. Looking at just today's changes by 37.236.234.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

  • Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has been added claiming designation by Syria with this claimed reference. I'll admit to not knowing much about the organisation, but I cannot find any mention of it or its aliases in the article, and more I cannot find any mention of formal designation for any organisation either.
  • Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been added claiming designation by the US with this claimed reference. The only mentions of "terror" with any suffix are in relation to the US. A claimed designation by the Lebanon was also added with this claimed reference and this claimed reference. The first claimed reference doesn't prove formal designation, the second is about Parguay designated Lebanon's Hezbollah, not about Lebanon designating anyone. Finally a claimed designation by Syria has been added with the claimed reference from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham above. This has the Syrian Foreign Minister calling Daesh a terrorist organisation (without providing an exact quote), but that isn't designation.

I believe the rest of the article will need some pruning to remove any similar additions where there is no formal designation, so thought it prudent to establish this that the article is only supposed to include actual formal designations, not just ones where someone has found a quote with the word "terrorist" in it. FDW777 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Further disruption by Iraqi IP editor

Further to #This article contains many false claims of designation, this editor has made other disruptive changes.

With regard to this edit. The Japanese list cited includes five organisations from the UK, the Irish National Liberation Army, Red Hand Defenders, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association and Islam 4UK. The Loyalist Volunteer Force are not listed.

With regard to this edit. The Russian list cited does not include the Combat Terrorist Organization (active 2003-2006). It does include the "Syndicate" Autonomous Combat Terrorist Organization (ABTO)", commonly referred to as just the Autonomous Combat Terrorist Organization (ABTO) in articles I found. This appears to be a totally different group active in 2009, not the 2003-2006 one. FDW777 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Loyalist Volunteer Force [1].--37.236.234.21 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, after looking into this, the Japanese list doesn't appear to meet the inclusion criteria. The home page dooesn't appear to be an official designation, it's simply a list that was produced in order to understand and organize the current trends of international terrorism and the status of various organizations, so the list is simply for information purposes rather than a statement of official designation by the Japanese government. Also references such as this, this and this are not proof of designation. A government official using any variant of the word terrorist is not official designation. FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Japan's handbook a valid source?

The table uses the following source for Japan:

  • 国際テロ組織 世界のテロ組織等の概要・動向 – 国際テロリズム要覧（Web版） – 公安調査庁. www.moj.go.jp. Archived from the original on 15 September 2018. Retrieved 28 June 2019.

Google translation of the intro:

International Terrorism Handbook (Web version) The Public Security Intelligence Agency published the "International Terrorism Handbook" (1993 edition) in 1993 to grasp and organize the trends of international terrorism and the actual conditions of various organizations. This website is an easy-to-understand re-edit of the 2019 International Terrorism Handbook.

As far as I can tell, this is not an official terrorist organization list, but educational material that does a comprehensive compilation about terrorism in history. It has sections for many organizations that have been disestablished for decades. Is this a usable source to determine official designation status in Japan? --MarioGom (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. This is a valid reference for designation for Japan though I believe, I have left this reference in the article while removing ones referenced by the information handbook. FDW777 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League/CPP-NPA

I have reverted the additions regarding these made by the permanently disruptive IP editor. Specifically the additions of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom for the former, and the FBI for the latter. The FBI reference contains no mention of designation (just like normal for this editor), and while the CPP-NPA reference looks reliable at first glance, the claim it makes of UK designation is completely false. There's the UK list, they aren't on it. I don't care how many supposedly reliable references say they are (and I've just found another couple of the article about the organisation), they are not on the list. I can find no evidence of them being on the list and taken off again. Similarly the Canadian and Australian list have no mention of this supposed designation either, despite the supposed reference claiming The CPP-NPA is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Philippines. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

ETA

@VolgaDnper1488: please stop adding duplicate information to the article. Despite no longer existing, ETA are still designated on various lists. That's why they are included in the section at List of designated terrorist groups#Organizations currently officially designated as terrorist by various governments, where they are listed as Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. The section you are adding them to says Below is the list of organizations that have officially been designated as terrorist in the past, by the respective parties, but have since been delisted, this is not the case for ETA they are still listed. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

FDW777, by the way, this is the case with many listed organizations. Many (or even most?) have disbanded, split or merged since their listing, but they are still officially designated terrorist organizations. I agree with your position of keeping them in the list. It would make sense to add a column with status (active/inactive/split/merged), but I'm afraid it might be too hard to maintain or even source properly. MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

White Helmets removal

I've removed the entry for the White Helmets. It's not a designated terrorist organization. The cited sources mention declarations by Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs about connections to terrorist groups, which is different from terrorist organization designation. The full list of organizations designated as terrorist by Russia is here: Russian Federation list of terrorist and extremist organizations. --MarioGom (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It did mention they are apparently considered so by Syria, as do various other entries on this article. The question is whether Syria does actually have a formal list like other countries, and if they don't the Syrian government considering a group to be terrorist isn't actually the same as designation. There are many problematic entries on this list (see sections above), I do not currently have the time available to perform the lengthy, and not particularly productive, task of pruning the article to an acceptable state. FDW777 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove China listings?

Sources used for China here are outdated and quite dubious. As far as I can tell, the PRC never had a formal terrorist designation process. I'm pretty sure I've read news in 2020 about an upcoming official terrorist designation list by the Chinese government (sorry, I can't find the link now), but it seems it has not been published so far. So I'm proposing the removal of List of designated terrorist groups § People's Republic of China section as well as its entries in the table. --MarioGom (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Since there is no mention of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh being designated on their own article, and they do not appear on the Indian list, I will regard any further attempt to add them without an explicit reference confirming they are designated by @Smdrss: as an attempt to add a deliberate factual error to the article. FDW777 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys?

The Canadian House of Commons has designated this American far-right group a terrorist organization for its role in the January 6, 2021 uprising at the US Capitol and other preceding acts. Should it be included?

I don't ordinarily make such a prediction, but there could easily be more such designations of the Proud Boys, such as the European Union.Pbrower2a (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

They hadn't when you posted (it was a recommendation that they should be designated, not actually designating them), but they are now. FDW777 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest people trying to add their flag to this article read WP:NONFREE. FDW777 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

the flag is in other places aswell, either it's not free everytime or not. just removing it here is disruptive Norschweden (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
No, it can't. If you don't understand where and when non-free images can be used, then listen to people that to. FDW777 (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you? there are rules for using "non-free" pictures (which itself would mean that a terrorist group has rights of it's logo which is rediculous) in lists, and as it is the list of terrorist organisations it really benefits from having the logo of the terrorist organisation in it Norschweden (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's been explained by someone with more patience than me at User talk:Norschweden#February 2021 why it can't be used, you've just ignored that and doubled down on your position. Policy is clear, the image isn't free and can't be used in this article. This is something that can't be ovverriden by a local consensus, so there is no point continuing this discussion any further. I strongly suggest you do not attempt to add it to this article again. FDW777 (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
you should read that policy again Norschweden (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If you genuinely believe your interpretation of policy is correct, then why don't you add the image to the article and I'll take whatever necessary action is needed straight after. I doubt it will end well for you, that much I do know. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Since you are apparently in denial, perhaps a further explanation will prevent you jumping off a cliff. WP:NFCCP point 8 says Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Thus, its inclusion at the Proud Boys article does increase readers understanding. However, this article is "List of designated terrorist groups", and the inclusion of a small thumbnail image for one of many groups does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. FDW777 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It does significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, as this article is a list of terrorist organisations and so it's core is informin about organisations that are labeled as such, as usual with such organisations they primerily use symbols instead of formally introducing themselfes, and so the symbol/flag of such an organisation is very relevant Norschweden (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

KLA

Britannica says The Serbian government argued that the KLA was a terrorist group, this isn't the same as formal designation. CFR says absoulutely nothing about the Serbian government's views on the KLA. Removed completely. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_designated_terrorist_groups/Archive_6&oldid=1220376667"