Talk:Committee for Charity and Support for the Palestinians

POV claim

I had all of 10 mins to create the article and had planned on comming back to add more info. Google CBSP and you'll find most links are to discussions of their terrorist support so its not unreasonable that in 10 minutes that was the best referencable info I could find.

Thanks for adding so much info and cleaning up the article. But there should be some discussion around the "claims" CBSP makes about itself as obviousley no terror related organization admits to their true functions. Macutty 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

reverting back

just because in your opinion certain items are not relevant does not actually make them irrelevant. There are many sources linking this group to terrorists and many would agree their close proximity to organizations and individuals suck as tariq are very relevant. I'm open to discussion but don't just show up and make revisions and edits without first providing an opportunity for some debate.Macutty 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Macutty, you put this sentence: "It has also been claimed to provided cash rewards to the families of Suicide Bombers [3]" which uses weasal words under the heading "Field of Work". My edit retained both your source and the information, while attributing the claim to the Israeli police, as per the article and moving this info out of "field of work". Additionally, I removed the part of the offices of hte CBSP, because the source is not a reliable one for that kind of information in my opinion and it is totally irrelevant that the charity's offices are allegedly located in the same building as a publishing house that publishes Tariq Ramadan's work. That's totally tangential information coming from a partisan source. It doesn't belong here. Tiamut 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If we use your criteria for establishing credible sources, than all the information supplied by CBSP itself should be removed. They are most certainly partisan and their claims have been refuted by many more credible sources such as the governments of the US, UK, and Australia. Their claims are in contrast to the stated positions of nearly all other sources except those known to be supportive or sympathetic to terrorist organizations and their supporters.

The push to further distribute pro/sympathetic propaganda on behalf of these groups needs to be balanced by the opposing side.

Besides, if we are going to use words like "stated" for the information released by CBSP then we cannot insert the words "claimed" for information released by the Israeli police.Macutty 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your reasoning might be a little faulty in that when we make controversial claims, there is a higher standard for reliability. The CBSP stating that its work consists of blah blah blah is not a conroversial statement. Accusing the CBSP of terrorist fundraising is not an accusation to be made lightly. Indeed, the last time such an accusation was made, the CBSP filed suit and won a successful defamation suit agains thte Simon Wiesenthal Center. Do you want Wikipedia to have to defend itself against legal charges for repeating what a French court found to libellous as fact? Did you notice that the article mentioned that CBSP affiliated people had been arrested but said nothing about whethe they were charged and found guilty? The claim that they fundraise for Hamas was made by Israeli police. In most democratic countries, you have a trial to determine guilt. Until then, they are nothing but "claims" and should be represented as such. Tiamut 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some, if not many, would argue that CBSP's statements regarding its work are controversial due to the number of reliable sources linking them to Hammas. And I don't think you'll find a court in the US willing to even entertain the idea of a legal suit over claims made here regarding CBSP being affilliated somehow with terrorists seeing as the US has already seized their bank accounts and designated them a terror funding group.

I've found some more info from reputable sources I'll be adding shortly. Hopefully these additiona wont instantly be "spun" and or deleted. Macutty 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If the information is relevant and from a reliable source (particularly if it is making a controversial claim), I don't see why there would a problem. And I deleted one sentence from your additions. The rest I copy-edited and retained. And it's not called "spun" when you present things accurately and farily, by the way. Tiamut 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Added the info back that you deleted with out the line about the others arrested. Austrailia seizing their assest is definately relevant and should be included. Macutty 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the cases. They are legal proceedings that are open and documentable. And even in the Weisenthal case it was ruled on and is just pending an appeal. They should not be included in the controversy section.

These cases represent very serious allegations that have not yet been proven in a court of law. If anything, the only legal outcome so far has found the CBSP not guilty of terrorist financing. When you started this article, you did it to have a page in which to slur CBSP to serve purposes you are pursuing in the Simon Wiesenthal article. That was pretty clear from the outset, but I didn't say anything that direct about it because I wanted to give you a chance to do some serious editing. I appreciate that you have worked to add info here. I have respected most of your additions, making changes for NPOV language and copy-editing while retaining the bulk of your work. Please do not try to make these allegations seem less controversial than they actually are. I think the layout as it is is just fine. Thanks for your comments. Tiamut 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Respecting your opinion (which has no place here) in the Wiesenthal case all that was proven was a liable case against one of their members. It did not conclude that CBSP isn't a, or related to, a terrorist org, just that the papers supplied in Samuels defence didn't substantiate his claims. This is far from vindicating CBSP of any or all wrong doing.

And if anything, these have been your attempts to try and "spin" and spread propaganda of a terrorist related group to try and shed them in a more positive light. This is demonstrated by your statement of:

"If anything, the only legal outcome so far has found the CBSP not guilty of terrorist financing."

In case you forgot, or weren;t paying attention, CBSP was not on trial in this case, it was Samuel on trial. So there is no way they could be found not guilty of anything.

Fact is, The governments of three nations have declared them terrorist or at least supporters of them which is far more reliable than taking the word of the terrorists themselves. The listing by these nations of CBSP as a terror related org are in no way controversial, they are facts. Just because you don't agree with the foreign policy of these nations does not make them some how unreliable. If you want to show them as unreliable then find some facts demonstrating this in regards to the CBSP. With all this being the case I'm moving the Government informaiton out ot the controversy section. Macutty 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The "fact" that they are listed as a terorist financing organization is something I don't dispute. Why they were listed is a more difficult question to answer. While you may believe that they are a terrorist financing organiztion based ont heir being listed as such, they reject that accusation and went to court to fight against it and won. It doesn't matter that they were not on trial. The man who made the accusations was and to determine if his statements were libellous, evidence was presented by him to show that they were a terrorist financing group. The evidence didn't cut it as the judge pointed out. Since the ruling is new, it will likely have an impact on other legal proceedings and their listed status in the US, Israel and Australia. It is controversial and it should stay under that heading. Tiamut 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is YOUR OPINION an has no place on wikipedia. We should presnt facts, as facts. Their disputing this is of no concern regarding whether or not they are considered a terrorist affiliated group. I belive there is enough info to justify a heading of "Terrorist connections". This is not a single group, or country listing them as such so its really not controversial. The hells angels deny they are a criminal organization, does that somehow make law enforcements claim, and the fact the supreme court of canada has ruled they are one as controversial? Your logic does not hold water. Your just trying to "spin" this as I mentioned earlier. You obviousley have not researched the case in France very much as it was a LIBLE case, not a terror case. The court in no way rendered judgement on the activities or basis of CBSP, just whether or not Samuel was guilty of slander. Unless you can find so sort of info to dispute this your edits are unjustified. You are inserting far too much of your own opinion and a NPOV. There are 3 reputable sources: US, Israel, Austrail who make one claim, and one group, the guilty party, who denies this. If they were able to prove they were not a terror related org there would be court cases launched in these countries to prove they weren't but CBSP does not want that level of scrutiny and in turn resorts to media statements instead. Once again, find some info or leave it alone. Macutty 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really don't like it, slap a NPOV tag on the articlce and allow some time for others to weigh in. Macutty 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: none of the other charties lister on the wikilist "Charities accused of ties to terrorism" have this "controversial" section so why do you believe it is justified here? The concept of "controversial" is itself subjective and should not be included in the article. Macutty 02:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee for Charity and Support for the Palestinians. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112174020/https://www.cbsp.fr/index.php to https://www.cbsp.fr/index.php

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) 09:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)