Talk:List of designated terrorist groups/Archive 6

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:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

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:

• Red Hand Commando Badge.jpg

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:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Irish Republican Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your footnote n1 does not appear to work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you find me a law that says:

- UK proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- UN sanctioned organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- EU sanctions organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

- New Zealand proscribed organisations are 'designated terrorist organisations'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In your response of yours to another editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table references:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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