Talk:IHH (Turkish NGO)

General

Crap. This has become a mess again. If it is still a mess tomorrow I'll try to straighten out the grammar and usage and get the citations linked to the right things again. ````VSO'P.

I realize you are fighting against repeated opinion attacks and revisions but somebody really needs to go over the page and do simple proofreading and copy editing. (Update -- thanks, it looks much better today.) You've got typos, words missing, etc. There's also currently no reference or link to the Gaza Flotilla or the Wikipedia Gaza flotilla raid entry, which seems lame given the "current event" warnings. Demonstrate the commitment to quality and clarity over politics by spending some fraction of the time devoted to swapping and re-swapping pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian political arguments to cleaning up the writing for clarity and correctness. People come here looking for information; whatever the controversy it would be nice if the entry were coherent. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an indirect reference to the Gaza Flotilla incident ("several members went on the boat"), plus a "previously arrested" phrase which could mean previous to the 1997 raid (which is described redundantly in succeeding sentences) or previous to the Gaza Flotilla. Winter Maiden (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think there needs to be a brief statement such as, "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction [[1]]." PS: Hey, I think I added this. I thought the page was locked, but I guess not?

>>Message from YalePhDHistory<< (I realize this may be an admin board so if you have a better place to put this message so that people can read it, please do move it there.) Listen up folks, I am posting excerpts that are thoroughly and properly cited and are a compilation of reports from the FBI, CIA, French, Turkish, and Danish Intelligence Services. Do not delete my post unless you have some issue with reality or have minor appearance issues. This is neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, these are the facts regarding the activities and connections of the IHH as they are seen by global intelligence services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YalePhDHistory (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all the references under the heading "controversy" are Israeli sources. The allegations are brought by the Israeli side and they are then proven by Israeli references. No dictionary can be built on such tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.59.102 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some Israeli people trying to vandalise this article, and add false claims about Humanitarian Aid Foundation. Last paragraph where they claim it has links to al-kaida is one of those edits.

All the info about IHH's alleged terrorist links are properly sourced, with references to established daily papers, quotes from the Carnegie Endowment, etc.  Someone is censoring that information. 

Please stop the nonsense, or you will get banned by the admins.85.103.12.75 (talk)

1. "by conservative American analyst Evan Kohlman"

Is there any evidence he is conservative? His wiki page does not so describe him. This seems like an attempt to dismiss his reportage based his background, a background that is not even sourced.

2. Apparently, Kohlman's theory about IHH has not gained traction, since IHH remains a legal organization everywhere except Israel, which banned it in 2008.

This seems to be original research. The states that have not banned IHH are political entities with their own agendas, not academic organizations designed to confirm or dispute research. In particular they all want to maintain good relations with the current govt of Turkey, which seems to protect the IHH.

3. The entire article seems to have POV issues, in tone and layout.

4. I have added further info on Izzat Shahin's activities on the West Bank to add contect to the deportation.

Ricardianman (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1. "by conservative..." - I looked at Evan Kohlman wikipedia page and more than 10 articles outside Wikipedia about him + his biography, nothing tells us he might be "conservative". The only thing linked to that word is the several right-wing "patriot" > conservative < american bloggers depicting him as a left-wing uncompetent "expert" for not always blaming Al Qaida for any bombing attempt in the USA, he's more the opposite of "conservative". Also, the article doesnt' mention that the release of Izzet Sahin was decided after negociations between Turkey and Israel, it makes that "controversy" part a little bit POV to me (saw way worse on Wikipedia though :]). --93.15.244.58 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(talya) hey i would just like to add some links that proves the connections to the Hamas and other terroists: http://www.ie.edu/IE/site/php/en/school_communication_detail.php?id_new=111 http://www.velfecr.com/gazze-de-goz-yasartan-buyuk-bulusma-video-foto-1408-haberi.html http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4168 http://www.diis.dk/sw241.asp http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/14/oh-jesus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.230.106 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• What does that photo article prove? Turkish officials and Russian PM Medvedev have also met hamas leaders before, do you think those countries are terrorist organizations, too? SandyNm (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This all just seems very fishy to me. The edits regarding the IHH's allegedly Islamist ideology are ones that have been made only in the past couple of days, if not only today. If these connections are so well known, why hasn't it been mentioned before? Furthermore, the brunt of the article goes on about the organizations alleged links to al-Qaida and other jihadist groups, but there are only three source in the entire article, not to mention that little else is mentioned about their humanitarian activities. I think that if this article is to be taken seriously, someone needs to flesh out the parts about the IHH that deal with their humanitarian activites, for as it is now, one'd directly assume that it's a terrorist group. This article as such seems more to want to convince people of this rather than informing them about what this group is and what it does. An article about a charity group should focus primarily on their charitable activities, not their alleged links to terrorist groups! Especially not with so few sources! Nederbörd (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ok. I recommend, then, either keep only the bare essentials from the Reuter's factbox, which is the most neutral, impartial, and general description, or, if you are to keep references to think-tanks and research organizations, which may or may not include partisan POV's, then add references with opposing views, for a more balanced and inclusive article. Perhaps, you Nederbörd, could find such research? Sextusempericus (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree this article has been hijacked by pro-Israel groups.--shirbil (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

POV

First check these claims: "IHH is also known to be a radical Islamist organisation dedicated to the ideology that is genocidal in its antisemitism, sexist, homophobic and anti-democratic."

Second, balance is needed if this op-ed is to be included:

The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."[1] According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• note this is a news article from a responsible daily, not an op-ed. and the Carnegie endowment for Internaitonal peace is a highly reputable source.Broad Wall (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Noted. I added information from Reuters, which seemed a little more balanced. And reverted the changes of 24.153.123.201 03:22, which was vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New User:Jayaka appears to be an identity created for the purpose of removing information, some sourced and some not, about the Islamist ideology of the IHH.Broad Wall (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Insani Yardim Vakfi has no ideology. its a charity helping people in Afrika and giving them food, and it is represented on the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.203.10 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH listed as Terrorist Organization by the US

Realizing that this page has come under "semi-protection" for it's possible vandalism, and why, politics again. It is worth noting, and it should be added that in a de-classified report titled "“International Islamic NGOs and Links to Terrorism” from the CIA, the IHH is listed as having "links with extremist groups in Iran and Algeria and was either active or facilitating activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia."Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Some more background, and an editor who is more "Wiki-savvy" than I would surely be able to present this information correctly, is this http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vr1qsPY-xJ8J:www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/312.pdf+Is+%C4%B0nsani+Yard%C4%B1m+Vakf%C4%B1+listed+by+the+US+as+a+terrorist+organization%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgovB4G22Iw7qoltk25qw7z8KFJhw5XXxxU22cstSwFFJPNdbB4cYnpD60HqN1RmdCYVeO5G3bxmiLlk77fGtZP5oqCfMViLrLkPdaOMoWYMW1JOkR02dDdxL880qVfw1w3HdaQ&sig=AHIEtbTt8Rro9Y-fCnl6WrzYWMJOXwamXw PDF of court documents related to IHH, et al. in a federal money laundering case for HAMAS.Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not an official US government document, and certainly does not mean that the US has listed the organisation as terrorist. --386-DX (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not to get into an argument, but since when is a US Federal Court document, not a US government document? I beg to differ and restate that it is indeed a .pdf copy of a document filed in US Federal Court and therefore is a US government document, and so is my Geneva Convention Identification Card, my Social Security Card, ad naseaum. In addition, I mentioned two pieces of separate documentation, you addressed your disagreement with the second being a US government document, the first mentioned though is published directly by the US Central Intelligence Agency, certainly that qualifies as a US government document.Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case it is not a "de-classified report", as you stated. It is simply a deposition by an expert witness in a court case. I don't think this is a reliable source as a secondary source, although it could serve as a reliable primary source for statements of the nature: "Brett Getrup declared that ...". But the only bits in his deposition related to IHH that go beyond guilt by association are not based on his personal knowledge, but are derived from a well-publicized closing argument for the prosecution by Jean-Louis Bruguière from a 2001 French court case (see e.g. DIIS Working Paper no 2006/7 by Evan F. Kohlmann, but note the nonsensical claim in this report that this closing argument is a "French intelligence report", as well as the author's inability to render the French title even moderately correctly, an error repeated in his book Al-Qaida's jihad in Europe: the Afghan-Bosnian network [presumably this mangled French should have been Réquisitoire définitif aux fins de non-lieu partiel, de requalification, de renvoi devant le tribunal correctionnel, de maintien sous contrôle judiciaire et de maintien en détention], making it quite clear that the author does not actually understand French) – but as you can see from our article, his research methods are somewhat controversial, and in any case an indictment is not proof of guilt, otherwise we can just scrap the whole court process. Since the Turkish person related to IHH who is implicated in this indictment is a living person who has never been officially accused of any crimes, we should apply the rules of WP:BLP and leave out the innuendo and hearsay.  --Lambiam 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not to sound argumentative, again I must again point out that this is now the third time I have mentioned in this talk the existence of two documents. Document A being titled "International Islamic NGOs and Links to Terrorism" and Document B, the aforementioned .pdf copy of an affidavit, sworn deposition in a US Federal Court. Being open to discussion, let's at least agree that there are TWO separate documents that I originally mentioned. I'll do a bit more digging and see if I can find you a copy of the de-classified CIA report without having to file a FoIA request personally.Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your posting was not very clear that these were two separate document; if you mention one document and then continue "Some more background" and "this information", it is natural to assume you are referring to the document just mentioned before. Now some questions. How do you know this is a CIA report? What source told you this report exists? Some source that took it from some source that ... took it from DIIS Working Paper no 2006/7, a paper that can't distinguish between a closing argument in a court case and a "French intelligence report". Does Kohlmann actually have this "French intelligence report" in his possession? Then it is hard to understand how he manages to mangle up its title so badly, not only in the working paper but also in his book. So where does he get his information from? Surprise, surprise, he writes that "a 1996 French intelligence memorandum" discloses that Islamic charities allow young volunteers to be recruited for jihad, and cites as its source this putative CIA report. I bet that the "1996 French intelligence memorandum" and the "French intelligence report" are one and the same thing, and that Kohlmann gets all his wisdom from this CIA report that no-one else has seen. Is it actually a CIA report? The first time he mentions it in the working paper (and the book), Kohlmann writes: "attributed by the Wall Street Journal to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)", without giving a verifiable reference. So (assuming he has a copy – an assumption I don't know to be true) this report does not actually identify its provenance as being the CIA. After this, he just calls it "the CIA report". Does it have an identifying number? What is its title? Kohlmann writes consistently: 'January 1996 CIA Report on “International Islamic NGOs” and links to terrorism'. Are the quotation marks “...” and the part "links to terrorism" part of the title, or is the title just "International Islamic NGOs" and is the rest an editorial addition? Nothing remotely like this can be found on the CIA's website, whether under publications or in the index of declassified articles. Something strange is going on here. Note also that most sources on the web that mention the report as a source give "International Islamic NGOs and Links to Terrorism" as the title, and also note the amount of parroting going on in which every writer creates the suggestion they read the report themselves while actually only copying what someone else (Kohlmann?) wrote. The standard recipe for disinformation is injecting something into the media whirlpool until it gets uncritically copied by a "reliable source", after which it can be endlessly copied by more and more "reliable sources", while each time the hyperbole can gets turned up one notch – what started as a mere suggestion becomes an observation and then turns into a generally accepted fact (recommended reading: Inside the Company). If you want to cite this report on Wikipedia, which you're welcome to do, you need indeed to cite from the report itself, giving a reference from which the reader can verify that the report has been accurately quoted, or, if the information is only summarized, that the summary is fair.  --Lambiam 07:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth: İHH is not listed on any of:

• the U.S. Congressional Research Service's report Foreign Terrorist Organizations of 2004;
• the European Union's List of persons, groups and entities referred to in Article 1 of 2007;
• the U.S. Department of State's 2008 Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations of 2008;
• the European Union's List of persons, groups and entities referred to in Article 1 of 2009;
• the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's notice entitled Terrorism: What you need to know about U.S. Sanctions of 2010.

Thus, labelling the organization as being "listed as Terrorist Organization by the US" is almost certainly incorrect, even if you can cite a dozen "reliable" sources alleging this.  --Lambiam 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, glad to finally get to the bottom of it. Now I can sleep well knowing that my being "unclear" that there were two separate documents led to all this.Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper title

The present title is a curious hybrid of English and Turkish spelling. Please note that the Turkish alphabet has two distinct letters, dotted and dotless I. In English texts these are often mapped to letters in the Basic Latin alphabet, as follows: the dotless minuscule ı is mapped to dotted i, while the dotted majuscule İ is mapped to dotless I. Here we see the majuscule being mapped while the minuscules remain unmapped, which is rather inconsistent.

Some facts about the name (source: www.ihh.org.tr):

1. The full Turkish name of the organization is İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri ve İnsani Yardım Vakfı.^#
2. The organization usually shortens this long name in Turkish texts to İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı.
3. The full English name of the organization is The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, which is a literal translation of the Turkish name. (Note that the definite article The is part of the name as used by the organization).
4. In its logo the organization uses both the shortened Turkish name and the full English name (see the logo).
5. In most English news sources the name is given as just IHH (with a dotless I). If the "İnsani Yardım Vakfı" part is mentioned, it is generally done in the "mapped" version Insani Yardim Vakfi. The sources don't appear to understand the connection between the "İHH" part and the "İnsani Yardım Vakfı" part, culminating in the NYT's inane formulation "the group, Insani Yardim Vakfi, known by its Turkish initials, I.H.H." (article here).

^#^ Modified 12:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) by adding a second ve; see explanation on the article's page.  --Lambiam

The problems with the current version of the page name are:

1. It does not correspond to any version used by the organization itself;
2. It is not by itself a plausible search name;
3. The use of a bracketed part suggests that the words between the brackets are a disambiguating term, which they are not; compare how strange it would be to give the page ABC Unified School District the title ABC (Unified School District).
4. The mixture of mapping to the Basic Latin alphabet with unmapped Turkish characters is schizophrenic.

I think together they have enough weight to make clear that the page should be moved to a better title. (We should of course retain all remotely plausible variants as redirects.)

According to the rule "most common in English", IHH would be the most appropriate name for the article; however, IHH has already been taken and is in the long run probably the better candidate for occupying this page. Next, the most plausible candidates for the name are:

1. IHH (xxx) where xxx is some disambiguation term, for example:
   1. IHH (organization);
   2. IHH (Turkish humanitarian aid foundation);
2. İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı;
3. (The) Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief.

In order of preference, I'd say 1.2, then 2, then 1.1, with 3 as least preferable. What do others think?  --Lambiam 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this overview, I have a (stupid) question, what the letters IHH stand for ? --Kimdime (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri, which produces the initialism İHH, and hence, with the Turkish letter İ replaced by the Basic Latin letter I, IHH. 85.101.2.34 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another IHH

It turns out that there is also a German humanitarian relief organization named Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation (which means "International Humanitarian Relief Organization"), based in Frankfurt am Main. As could be expected, this organization generally goes by the initialism IHH. Although having a similar (but not identical) logo and also being run by Turks with an emphasis on projects in Muslim countries, this organization states on its website that it should not be confused with the Turkish IHH (the subject of this article) and that it was not involved in the "Free Gaza" campaign.  --Lambiam

Follow-up: Several sources (also "reliable" ones) mention Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation and the Internationale Humanitaire Hulporganisatie as, respectively, the German and Dutch branches of the Turkish İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı. However, the other day the head of İHH was on Turkish television, and when interviewed about the relationship he stated that these organizations had been founded and adopted the initials IHH during the Bosnian war in order to profit from the success of the Turkish organization, and that İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı had begun instituting legal proceeding against them – but that progress was slow due to the difficulties of a border-crossing legal process.  --Lambiam 07:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Gaza Flotilla be mentioned somewhere in this article?

Given that's why many people are likely to be reading it at the moment, it seems odd that the Gaza Flotilla isn't mentioned. It would be useful to make clear exactly what the link between IHH and the flotilla is. Robofish (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest something like this: "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction. International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PS: I think I may have added this. I thought the page was locked, but maybe not?

Copyright violation

This edit is made up of copying, word for word, copyrighted material.The text (including the citations) is lifted from the DIIS study (here). nableezy - 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Text in the Alleged terrorist ties section is also lifted from the WINEP paper. nableezy - 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a model Wikipedian, I'm sure you'd be glad to paraphrase it accordingly. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As a model Wikipedian, I'm sure you will remove the copyright violation immediately. nableezy - 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncritical editorship

I find it rather appalling how all kinds of claims of often dubious provenance – the kind of disinformation the intelligence community is adept in seeding and spreading around – are copied uncritically to the article, without an examination of the stated sources. If A claims that B states that X, we should not simply report that in the form: "B states that X", copying the reference (if any) given by A. We should only report this in such a way if we have examined that reference ourselves, and found that the claim is accurate. Otherwise (if the cited source is not available, so we cannot examine it), if we report this claim at all, we should cite it from A – but only if A is a truly reliable source, which many think tanks, political analysts, and other pundits, are not.  --Lambiam 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with you Lambiam. The whole section on Islamist affiliations is written in a way reminiscent of extremist leaflets. All the sources cited are simple hearsay, specific persons' opinions, or, at best, conclusions of think-tanks and institutes.

• "The Daily Telegraph reports that Israel accuses"... A newspaper reports that Israel accuses, etc. Must this be in an article?
• "the Danish Institute for International Studies published a working paper".... The institutes for International Studies all over the world publish tons of working papers.... Can they be cited in an encyclopedic article to make such claims?
• "According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"... I think I won't even comment on how unreliable a source this is.
• Furthermore, half of the section is based on a report by three members of the "Washington Institute for Near East Policy". Correct me if I'm wrong but they are just speaking for themselves, or at best for their whole institute. This can hardly justify attributions like "According to statements issued by the U.S. government", or "the United States named", or "According to the U.S. Treasury Department", or "A 1996 CIA report on terrorist abuse of charities, declassified after the September 11 attacks". To make such claims, one should site the actual US Goverment, the US treasury Dept, or CIA. As it stands now it's ridiculous.

I strongly believe that we should just keep the allegations of the "Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", although even that could be better-cited, and maybe the bit from the Reuters factbox about Izzet Sahin. The rest, IMO, should definitely go.

Awaiting your opinions. Steloukos (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. DIIS is a RS enough, and was cited by reliable media sources. It does not includes only speculations but also fact such as the raid over IHH HQ and the weapons and bomb-making found there. Several sources, including Israel, claims IHH had ties with Hamad. The section on IHH ties with Islamic groups should stay. MathKnight 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying the entire section should go. I'm just saying that presently, its citation is incredibly bad. The way it is now, it seems like somebody just googled the right words and copy-pasted the first thing they found. DIIS might be a wonderful institute, but a published paper by an institute is just that: a paper from an institute. One should get the actual paper, read it thoroughly, check its sources, and cite the sources themselves before making such a strong accusation. Otherwise, the paper represents only its writer's opinion, and nothing says that even from the same institute there might have been a hundred contradicting papers. And even if we keep the DIIS thing, how acceptable do you find the phrases "According to statements issued by the U.S. government", or "the United States named", etc, when all they have to back them up is a report by three individuals? Steloukos (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This information is coming from multiple reliable sources. The ties to Hamas seem to be pretty clear while any links to al-Qaeda and jihadist insurgents worldwide appear to be less strong and a bit more tenuous. And based by the behavior on IHH on the boat, their radicalism is pretty apparent. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If the information is coming from multiple reliable sources as you say, please try to find such sources and cite them properly. As things are now I see nothing that justifies such strong claims. I will proceed to edit the section and I sincerely hope you'll find my changes acceptable. Steloukos (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Steloukos, this version looks about right in terms of the weight given to the claims about association with violent extremists. Especially given that an aid organisation working in Palestine is going to have to have relations with organisations Israel and other western govs object to simply because those are the organisations governing the place. And more importantly, beyond that point, these claims are largely speculative: there aren't many convictions for aiding and abetting extremists. Misarxist (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The work of the danish institute is manly based on a report from counter terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguière. What it say might be questionable, but the source is good enough to be mentioned into the article. If there is a source questioning it statments, it should of course be included, but there is no reason to remove this excellent source.--Kimdime (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been checking in on this page throughout the past week, and making formatting, usage, and grammar corrections to try to keep it readable, but have tried to leave decisions about content to those with more information or more Wikipedia experience, or both. What I want from the article is for people who wonder what IHH is to be able to find out its public identity, its role in the flotilla incident, the fact that a controversy exists over its possible ties to Islamic extremism, and the major players making claims on each side of the controversy, with appropriate pointers if people wish to pursue further. I have to say that today's version (Friday, June 4, 1:45 pm ET) seems really well done. I did change: Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH had ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH was aiding terrorism." to the present-tense "Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH has ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH aids terrorism." mainly for grammar/usage reasons -- ties in the past are still ties, and organizations are still claiming IHH's actions this week mostly help terrorists. Thus, present tense is appropriate. 65.96.173.41 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P

(In reaction to MathKnight and Plot Spoiler:) DIIS may generally a reliable source, but in his working paper Kohlmann (A) just uncritically parrots what Bruguière (B) claims (X), without any mention of the fact that the latter is a controversial figure. He also totally misrepresents the nature of B's "report", namely a closing argument in which the prosecutor states what he hopes the jury or judges will consider proven, and not a "French intelligence report". When you trace it back, the "information coming from multiple reliable sources", consisting mainly of hearsay, innuendo, and guilt by association, all goes back on this one person. The Turkish authorities are not particularly known for their friendly treatment of terrorists, and if there had really been a police raid on the IHH headquarters in which weapons, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and records of calls to an al-Qaida guest house had been found, it would have been all over the front pages of the Turkish newspapers, there would have been a criminal investigation, court cases, and convictions, and the IHH would have been closed down. Nothing of the nature happened.  --Lambiam 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this considered original research? Riri145 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not put it in a Wikipedia article, but on a talk page you must be free to explain why you think a source is inaccurate or not reliable without citing a reliable source for this opinion. But actually, in correction to what I wrote, apparently a raid on the Istanbul headquarters of the İHH did take place and there was a trial of the head of İHH, only he was acquitted and nothing came out of it (source: Özgür Öğret and Sevim Songün (June 4, 2010). "Turkish humanitarian group on Gaza ship denies accusations against them". Hürriyet Daily News. Retrieved June 6, 2010.).  --Lambiam 08:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Court document primary source

Is the source used in paragraph acceptable? The document (testimony16.pdf) is a court transcript, and as such I think can't be used on its own becuase it's a primary source: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Misarxist (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require any analysis - it's just what the Judge said. Originally I posted what he said verbatim, which has now been edited. Why can't we use a court transcript on it's own? It's just like a transcript of a radio interview, can't we use that? It's more genuine than someone paraphrasing what he said in a secondary source Calanen (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It must be said, though, that Bruguière, whose investigation methods have been controversial, is incredibly vague in his allegations, and I wonder how much weight can be given to this before it becomes undue. Is the fact that there were "calls that crossed between Canada and ... Istanbul", combined with the public-knowledge facts that Montreal, where the Montreal cell was located, is in Canada and IHH headquarters in Istanbul, really evidence tying IHH to the Montreal cell? I'm sure there were calls that "crossed" between the United States and Afghanistan, but that is not evidence tying Obama to al Qaeda. There is something I don't understand about this testimony. I don't know if the judge was called as an ordinary witness or as an expert witness, but in either case something is not right. Normally a witness is only allowed to testify things about which they have firsthand knowledge. They can't testify, for example, that the accused is "kind of a type of killer". But most of what the judge states in his testimony can quite obviously not have been first-hand knowledge, but is a synthesis concocted from snippets of information from many diverse undisclosed sources. An expert witness, on the other hand, is not supposed to testify about incidental facts, but about facts of a general – although not generally known – validity, such as the appearance of flesh wounds caused by bullets, or what constitutes current "best practice" in software construction. They can't testify, for example, that the accused is "kind of a type of killer". Was there a cross-examination? The relevance of the statements concerning IHH to the actual Millenium Bomber case in fact appears extremely low, and there may have been no particular reason for the defense to question these allegations at all. Note also that IHH was not a party in the court case, and had no opportunity whatsoever to challenge or otherwise defend itself against the allegations.  --Lambiam 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From that guideline "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." which I don't think adequately describes Bruguière's vague statements in that trial transcript so I'm removing it for now. Is the information (or similar) in the other reports, which are acceptable secondary sources? Misarxist (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This was why I tried to quote it verbatim. It's an interesting piece of information that a serving anti-terrorist judge gave under oath. This is even more reliable than someone making a statement in a radio or television interview, as there are no perjury sanctions in those forums. There are other secondary sources which have referred to it, I will see if I can find one that is handy.Calanen (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting:

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told prosecutors yesterday they could not use the expert testimony of Jean-Louis Bruguiere, a French prosecutor and expert in Islamic terrorism, to describe Ressam as a player in an international conspiracy that they say stretched from terrorist training camps in Afghanistan to the quiet Washington border town of Port Angeles, where Ressam was arrested Dec. 14, 1999, with a car loaded with explosives. [...] But the judge said he was concerned Bruguiere's expertise could distract the jury from other evidence. "The force of his reputation would carry the risk that the jury would not focus on hard facts," Coughenour said. "I must conclude that the probative (evidence) value of his testimony would be outweighed by its prejudice to the defendant." [Mike Carter (April 3, 2001). "Terrorist expert's testimony limited; judge says Ressam jury might lose its focus". The Seattle Times.]

and:

Bruguiere was allowed to take the witness stand yesterday, but only to acknowledge that he had been investigating Ressam, some of his Montreal friends and roommates, and others in Paris since 1996. He was not allowed to say why, or identify evidence he uncovered that linked Ressam and some of the others to bin Laden's militant Islamic organization or the Afghan terrorist-training camps he allegedly finances. [Mike Carter (April 4, 2001). "Ressam prosecution rests; defense says it can present its case in a day". The Seattle Times.]

Here you can read explicitly that Judge John Coughenour sent the jury out of the courtroom and listened to what Bruguière intended to tell jurors, if allowed: ["The Terrorist Within, Chapter 16: The Reckoning". The Seattle Times. July 6, 2002.]. What we read in the pdf file is not the testimony as presented under oath in the witness stand – which goes a long way to explain what I did not understand (see above).  --Lambiam 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it did not go before the jury, does not mean that it was not a statement made under oath. It was made under oath to the Court, the Court weighs up whether or not to present it to the jury, not as an assessment of its truth or otherwise, but in relation to complex rules and law concerning the fairness to the accused given his rights under the law. Wikipedia is not a court room, if the Judge said it under oath, there is no reason it should not be included in the article. I note that it has been removed from the article, but there is no reason why it should be - even if it was qualified by the fact that it was not admitted into evidence against the accused. It is misleading to imply that the fact it was not admitted into evidence is a value judgment about the truth of the witness, it is not. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of US court proceedings, and I don't know if it is somehow unthinkable that Bruguière was not under oath while disclosing what he would proceed to state if called to the witness stand, but I notice that it is recorded in the transcript that an interpreter is sworn in ("Please raise your right hand"), while there is nothing like that for Bruguière; all he is asked when he appears is to state his name and spell it. There was an earlier examination of B. in Seattle on which I can find no further information, and perhaps he was sworn in then, and his oath given then somehow extends to this examination in Los Angeles. In any case, it is clear (see my earlier remarks on the nature of this testimony and the objections of the defense quoted below) that, whether under oath or not, his statements and judgments are mainly based on hearsay. I don't object to inclusion per se, but if the article includes any of this, it should also report the other side of the story.  --Lambiam 07:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now that Judge John Coughenour's ruling disallowing this as evidence is actually included in the pdf file, at the page numbered 51 in the typescript, which (as the page boundaries do not agree) is page 45 in the pdf file. A quote from the Judge:

Much of the witness's testimony would necessarily be based upon hearsay and while it might be admissible as a basis for expert testimony that distinction would likely be difficult for most jurors to apply. [italics for emphasis are mine. --L.]

If some of the hearsay from this disallowed testimony is included in our article, it must be made clear that this is what it is, and not what one would expect from a wording like:

In the 2001 trial of Ahmed Ressam in Seattle, the would-be Millennium bomber, French counterterrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere testified that the IHH had played an "important role" in Ressam's plot to bomb LAX airport on New Year's Day, 2000, and mentioned "a rather close relation" between the bomber and the Turkish group.[2]

Also – in comparison a minor issue – Seattle should be Los Angeles, as far as the trial and the disallowed testimony in the cited transcript is concerned.  --Lambiam 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See further the objections of the defense against allowing Bruguière's testimony, starting from the page numbered 32 in the typescript, line 15, which I can't resist quoting somewhat extensively:

That aside, when you really listen to what Judge Bruguiere is saying and because we didn't get into the cross much here, there are profound questions concerning the reliability of the information that he relies upon. ... But in addition, when you think just basically about the concept of the reliability, what source of information could be more unreliable than a suspect in a case. ... It's the information supplied by someone we can't reach, can't confront, and who is inherently unreliable.
   Next, component of the question of reliability is the question of methodology. And the interrogations conducted in this case by Judge Bruguiere were conducted under rules which are entirely foreign to our system of criminal justice. We're talking about his ability to go out and interrogate people without counsel and subject them to his questioning where no rules that govern our basic concepts of due process apply. It's an interrogation by a law enforcement entity without any protections whatsoever. That methodology undermines the reliability of this already unreliable source of information.
   In addition, it's done by not an unbiased person. It's not Your Honor or some other judge as we understand that concept in America, but by an officer. I'll use the phrase that Mr. Gonzalez used in his brief of the French inquisitorial system. And the term inquisitorial is a good term for what happens in this case. Who, despite his accomplishments and I'm sure he's had many, is hardly infallible.
   He has brought to court scores of individuals who are actually and factually innocent and detained them for months and months and months on end just to see them leave at the end of the case tarnished only by the fact that they didn't see the light of day for months and years on end. Who is recognized internationally throughout the human rights community for his zealousness and his tendency to overreach.
   This is the speaker who is giving us the information that is coming from the unreliable source that we have no ability to confront on a subject, Your Honor, that is exceedingly complex and not quite as black and white as the government would like the jury to believe.

If Bruguière's statements are included in the article, then, I insist (and think this is also required by the WP:DUE policy), we should also allow some room for presenting this critical view.  --Lambiam 17:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, ;) but I still think it shouldn't be there because it's a primary source. Though as you say if it is mentioned, it should be added per Seattle Times that the jury was instructed to ignore it. More generally I think the alleged terror links should be cut down as there are no actual convictions or listings except in Israel. Misarxist (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

UN Status

This reference (currently note 3) "Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, The". NGO Branch, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=showProfileDetails&tab=1&profileCode=2525. Retrieved 2010-06-02. provides a link to IHH's profile page, but it is a search result and the link isn't stable--when your search times out, it reverts to the search page. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on such a link. I added a direct link to the public document listing NGOs, which also supports the assertion (currently note 4), so this one could come out. 74.104.211.63 (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P

Title of section

I think "allegations of terrorist affiliations" is a better title than the "alleged islamist and jihadist affiliations" the second one seems to carry racist implications. It also appears take Israeli accusations as facts. ManasShaikh (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometime later

I removed the reference in the opening section to the flotilla victims being "killed at close range and some in the back" because a) you can't be "killed at close range," or rather, you are always killed at close range, death being among the most intimately personal of experiences. What you can or can not be at close range is "shot". Likewise, you can't be killed in the back. You can be shot in the back, stabbed in the back, etc. AND b) but either way, it's not relevant to a description/definition of IHH. It may be relevant to the entry on the Gaza flotilla raid, which this article handily links to; if so, it should be added there, and good luck to it. 65.96.173.41 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.

Thanks for the grammer fixes, and the good humour. It is certainly very important to include the fact, especially since it is this incident that has brought so much attention towards IHH. ManasShaikh (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References from WSWS.org

This link is used as a reference to the lack of IHH being on the US State Departments list of 45 terrorist organizations.

This link does not provide a reference for that, it instead goes directly to a follow-up article regarding the boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie provided by the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). This being a neutral source can certainly be questioned.Erelas RyAlcar (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dug up real references at US State Department -- DOS Terrorist Organizations list and transcript of the June 2 press briefing in which PJ Crowley actually says the words "can't be validated". VSO'P 65.96.173.41 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed a parenthetical about an offer to land at Ashdod because it wasn't supported by the references attached to it (which applied to the first half of the original sentence but not to the Ashdod offer) and because I could not determine whether this was supposed to refer to the standing offer from the IDF to allow aid ships to land at Ashdod or the demand from the IDF group intercepting the flotilla that the ships go to Ashdod. The whole thing is laid out pretty well in the Gaza flotilla raid page. If it's going to be reiterated here it needs more than a single passive-voice clause to make it understandable for readers. VSO'P.65.96.173.41 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Seems reasonable and there are no objections. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) → IHH (Turkish NGO) — Above I've explained the problems with the current title and why it should be moved to a better title. After ample consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the best disambiguating phrase is "Turkish NGO"; it is impeccably NPOV, and makes immediately clear which meaning of "IHH" this is.  --Lambiam 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess so, current title is a bit random. The title shld be most common english name which is IHH which is currently taken by a hedgehog gene. I think there's a definite case to be made for this IHH being the better known one. Misarxist (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That is probably true at this moment, but just as it was not one month ago, one may doubt it it will still be so, say, five years from now. As there is also the German IHH (Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation), I'm actually more inclined to be in favour of moving the current IHH page to IHH (protein) or Indian Hedgehog protein, and turning IHH into a disambiguation page.  --Lambiam 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're correct. Suggest moving per Lambian's suggestion if no-one objects in next 24 hrs. Misarxist (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PR war

The article is not very stable, as allegations are being added and removed without apparent effort to reach a consensus.

It should be clear that a PR war is going on in the media, in which one side wants the world to think that Israel, in an act of piracy on the free seas, murdered a bunch of innocent peace-loving people with no other aim than to bring humanitarian aid to victims of cruel oppression, while another side is promoting the viewpoint that a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency planned and provoked a violent confrontation with a group of unsuspecting commandos attempting a nonviolent takeover of a vessel about to break a legal blockade. Now I don't know which is closer to the truth, as all information I have access to is from this PR battlefield. What I do notice, though, is that almost all published allegations directed against IHH simply parrot earlier allegations, sometimes with attribution to a source, but often without.

Wikipedia must not serve as a theatre of war, and we as editors must avoid being used as pawns. On the other hand, the allegations do exist, they are (obviously) notable, and should be reported on – and such reports should not be summarily removed if they are in conformance with our core policies. But please do not use tertiary sources if there is a secondary source that can be cited. For example, there is an allegation that IHH is a member of the Union of Good, which is reportedly the reason why the organization was banned by Israel. Now I don't know whether this is so or not, but I haven't been able to find any other originating source than the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), for example here. (See also this copy of a report by the ITIC – reported by Google search as being on the ITIC website, but that has now become a dead link – which manages to confuse the German IHH with the Turkish IHH.) This Union-of-Good allegation has been repeated all over the Western media, but all appears to be based, ultimately, on the Israeli assertion. Almost all other allegations can be traced back to Bruguière, mostly by way of Kohlmann. If twenty sources parrot Kohlmann, it does not become twenty times as true.

Also please avoid using opinion pieces, unless the source is notable, such as an editorial in a major newspaper, but then it should be clearly identified as such.

Should we have a spinout article with a title such as "Allegations of terrorist affiliations of IHH (Turkish NGO)" (while leaving an adequate summary here)? It could perhaps help to make the present article more stable, and also allow in-depth treatment that would be excessive in this article.  --Lambiam 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with splitting the article, this should only be done if it becomes too long. Think that section should be condensed further though, it really only needs reports of what actions have been taken against them, not random accusations based on investigations which didn't lead to convictions. Also the contextualisation of their links with Hammas (ie they're taking aid to the Gaza Strip so of course they need to talk to them) should be kept. Misarxist (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically stuff like this [3], are these all acceptable? Misarxist (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable in proportion to notability of work of group. Not half of article. WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL.--Brendumb (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what "too long" is, nowadays; there used to be a rule of thumb recommending splitting up articles reaching 32K – originally because of browser limitations, but also with a view to readability. The last time I looked at the article – as I said, it is unstable – it was 35,179 bytes (34.4K), of which 21,760 bytes (62%) was due to a single section: Affiliations controversy. (That was the section title when I wrote this; it may be different now.) That one section is also the major contributor to the instability.  --Lambiam 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE says some, but length also be guided by WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Maybe try a lot of summarizing.--Brendumb (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

It is obvious that edits are being added to this article to support the (notable) allegations of IHH links with terrorism, but without mentioning the counter-arguments that it is active in many countries, and has been investigated in many countries, without it having been restricted outside of Israel. This is WP:UNDUE, bordering on WP:FRINGE. I have added an {{npov}} tag to the article, and watchlisted it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Turky themselves found weaponry in the IHH offices. How is mentioning this in the article falling under FRINGE ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And then there was a court case, and nothing came out of it: the head of IHH was acquitted of all charges, and IHH was not shut down. Note that this took place during a time when the secular guard of Turkey, with which the judicial apparatus is rather cozy, was trying to crack down on Islamic institutions. Apparently the evidence collected was not very convincing. Bruguière, and in his footsteps Kohlmann, carefully fail to mention this.  --Lambiam 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on the "secular guard ... judicial apparatus" is irrelevant. If the case was overruled, then this should appear in a reliable secondary source and the full story should be covered in Wikipedia -- both the finding of explosives as well as the aquittal on the head of the IHH. FRINGE has nothing to do with this issue. So, please post the source here and work out a version that writes in the whole info per sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote is relevant as background information in this discussion. Among the issues with the allegations is that most of it is vague and unspecific, and (in the secondary sources) reported as stemming from primary (?) sources that cannot be traced ("a CIA report", "a French intelligence report"). That does not make it easy to dig up material to show other sides of the story. The best reference I have for the acquittal, I posted already above: Özgür Öğret and Sevim Songün (June 4, 2010). "Turkish humanitarian group on Gaza ship denies accusations against them". Hürriyet Daily News. Retrieved June 6, 2010. Unfortunately the link is broken at the moment, but a copy of the article can be found here. As this is not a direct source, but information given by an IHH officer, it can only be reported as such. Nevertheless, my plausibility detector tells me this is most likely true, for the simple reason that otherwise the original allegers would certainly have included information on the conviction, conjoined with the fact that the organization would make itself rather vulnerable by publicly lying about such a verifiable fact. Furthermore, it is evident that IHH has not been closed.  --Lambiam 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All due respect to the "plausibility detector", we can only relate this response to İHH deputy head Yavuz Dede (per "According to Dede, the group was set up due to the political situation in Turkey at the time and [According to Dede] nothing came out of the trial after the raid. İHH President Bülent Yıldırım was [According to Dede] acquitted and released from prison after three months. [According to Dede that's the whole truth and nothing but the truth]"

p.s. there are many evident things going on in Turkey -- but they are irrelevant. Thank you for the link.. now let's sort the text and close this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep POV box?

Are there remaining unresolved NPOV issues that are of sufficient importance to justify keeping the {{POV-section}} box on the section Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations? Unless serious issues are identified, I'll remove it in a couple of days.  --Lambiam 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel tag

WP:LABEL say "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious. If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources, use a more specific term such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage taker, or kidnapper. If none of these apply, use a more neutral, general word such as insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, or militant.

The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy, and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." --Brendumb (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is terrorist

Israel named terrorist living in America who "tried to bring electronic components into the Gaza Strip, which Israel has forbidden". Israelis pressing the Americans to quit harboring terrorists? Or is America terrorist for supporting terrorist who support terrorist?--71.156.84.246 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

More Bruguière

Apart from above,

In the 2001 book "Manipulations Africaines", he was accused by the French journalist Pierre Péan of having deliberately ignored evidence pointing to Lebanon, Syria and Iran in order to put the blame on Libya

The Mitrokhin Commission, Bruguière participated in, has been discredited following a manipulation by a network to defame Prime minister Romano Prodi and other political opponents of Berlusconi, by claiming they worked for the KGB

Bruguière involved in the 2003 Casablanca bombings case, and the defendants' lawyer questioned his methods

Bruguière's thesis over Rwandan assassination has been very controversial, and criticized by Le Figaro, Libération and others newspapers

Unsuccessful conservative French political candidate

Some way to convey?--Brendumb (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If properly attributed to reliable sources, and conforming to WP:BLP, this could find a place in the article Jean-Louis Bruguière. I don't see it fitting here.  --Lambiam 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevance in article

Certain editors find it appropriate to inundate the Allegations section with random quotations.

• It is already clear that the U.S. does not label it a terrorist group. No need to repeat that, or anything similar, multiple times. Not to mention this is about what does exist, not what doesnt. One can assume without that that the U.S. has not labeled it terrorist.

• The Wall Street Journal does not need to be verified.

• Collecting random descriptions of the IHH from news media does not, as I suspect the editors were trying to suggest, equal that that the IHH thus has no ties to Islamist or terrorist groups on the basis of that alone. This includes: "NPR has described the group as a "humanitarian organization that co-sponsored last week's flotilla of aid ships that attempted, with deadly results, to break Israel's blockade of Gaza" and the link. It is completely irrelevant. Stephen Walt does not mention the IHH even once in his article. That is irrelevant. This is not a laundry list. The BBC's rationale for why it is popular among Turks has nothing to do with anything about allegations to terrorist ties, neither does the fact that the Israeli army said they did not carry heavy weapons--and any of such talk belongs on the Gaza flotilla raid article. The IHH chairman describing an allegation as propaganda cetainly does not translate to "Reuters also reported ... that the move was Israeli "'propaganda'."

--Shamir1 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have issues with parts of the article, please address them one by one in your edits. Massive reversals to older versions of the article are not a way to reach consensus. I agree that random descriptions serve no purpose, and repetition of the same information from the same source in tertiary sources does not make it somehow more true. On the other hand, in a court case you can have character witnesses, and likewise a point can be made that characterizations of IHH by reliable sources that depict it as a benevolent organization do have a role here. I, for one, have attempted to merge separate paragraphs that argue the same point, but your reversals undo such work. They also undo my efforts to fix mischaracterizations of sources and misleading renderings of the information in the cited sources.  --Lambiam 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike you, I very clearly explained my edits--all of which are sourced and relevant. Your logic, that descriptions of humanitarian activities necessarily means they hold no fundamentalist beliefs or ties to terrorist groups is your original research. This logic does not hold up. It is POV and no article on this encyclopedia follows that model. Let me begin. Again.

• While the group has widely been described as a "humanitarian"[33][34][35] group and as a "charity"

This has nothing to do with anything. It infers that a charity and humanitarian group cannot necessarily have ties to a terrorist group. This is logic does not hold.

• Israel is the only country which has banned the group.

This is fine, but it does not need to a) be written multiple times, and b) can also be written, as modeled by other articles: Israel has outlawed the group. Stressing it is the only one is pointless for an encyclopedia. Most articles do not write such statements. This is not the big deal though. It does not need to be written multiple times.

• And by far the most pointless, redundant, and irrelevant section: In the media following the flotilla raid.

This is not a collection of short descriptions of the IHH. All that belongs in the lead or in Background/History. Furthermore, the group being a charity does not necessarily mean it has no ties to Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. as others (must be with sources!) are included. Stick to what is relevant.

• "as the IHH shot to attention, so have Israeli accusations that it supports terrorism" --This does mean that those accusations are true or false, and we already made a similar statement in the beginning. No need for multiple references of something irrelevant to begin with.
• the group was "renovating the port, funding a Turkish-Palestinian school and plans to build a hospital and apartments for Gazans made homeless during the war with Israel early last year. The group also supports 9,000 families with money and food parcels, and is hosting computer and sewing courses for women."

??? What does this have to do with allegations of ties to terrorist groups? Furthermore, I myself already added this to its humanitarian activities, long ago, where it still is.

• The BBC reported "its energetic championing of the Palestinian cause, in particular the plight of people in Gaza, has struck a chord with many Turks".

Again, this has nothing to do with anything. It's in the wrong section if anywhere.

• The Guardian has described IHH as "an Islamic humanitarian group that is based in Istanbul but operates in several other countries

...and?

• "the Americans appeared to confirm that there was no evidence to suggest that IHH was a terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaida. And the Israeli army all but admitted that the activists did not have guns of their own before the raid."

The idea of the first part of this passage is already included (and expanded/clarified) in the Newsweek source. The second part is an issuesalready included, discussed, and expanded in Gaza flotilla raid and has nothing to do with terror ties.

• Today's Zaman has written "the Israeli government tries to portray the Turkish human rights activists as terrorists. I have been closely monitoring the activities of the Humanitarian Aid Foundation (İHH), who cannot be labeled terrorists. Such language would only help al-Qaeda or other terror organizations justify their actions. In fact millions of Turks consider the İHH to be a humanitarian organization and would not buy such an argument

This is not the position of Today's Zaman, but rather the opinion of a columnist. There is nothing significant or encyclopedic about his statements. There are several more important columnists and commentators at the New York Times, Haaretz and others have written about this more directly. This has little relevance, and no significance. He is stating his opinion. We have already included the IHH opinion.

• Cihan News Agency has described IHH as a "Turkish humanitarian relief organization"

This has nothing to do with anything, and does not specifically say that the IHH has or has no ties to terrorist groups.

• a British MP said "Israel has also creating blind excuses and trying to cover the attack".[55]

This statement (totally random and un-notable—what about other MP's and politicians?) has nothing to do with whether or not the IHH has ties to terrorists.

• Reuters has written that "the Istanbul-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) is an Islamic charity group that was formed to provide aid to Bosnian Muslims in the mid-1990s. It has been involved in aid missions in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Iraq, Palestinian territories and other places, according to Turkish media."[36] Reuters also reported that IHH is not classified as a terror organisation by Israel and that the IHH chairman said the Israeli accusations were "propaganda".[56]

Everything here is already in the article. Reuters's introductory description does not mean the IHH does or does not have ties to terrorist groups.

• Hurriyet wrote that the Turkish government "dismissed the responsibility of the IHH, an Islamic charity that owns Mavi Marmara"[37] and that "officials with the group deny the claims, saying the passengers on the vessels were ‘100 percent’ peaceful volunteers and that the NGO is pursuing an agenda of broad humanitarian assistance rather than promoting Islam". Hurriyet further reported IHH officials said "claims that the İHH has ties to terrorist organizations are part of a smear campaign by Israel".[58]

I already included some of this in Background. We do not need essentially the same argument from the IHH chairman written multiple times. Please stop clustering this article.

--Shamir1 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to these edits: [4] and [5], with respective edit summaries nothing was "mysterious"--they did not include allegations or any of the sort, and i already added its humanitarian activities in the appropriate section, no need twice, and too much irrelevance, much has nothing to do with the IHH, this is not about what does not exist, but what it does. How does the IHH leader = Reuters?. Both removed more than 10,000 bytes of content, scattered all over the place, and it is hard to characterize the edit summaries as "very clearly explained". My complaint, however, was not about the removal of content, but the re-introduction of much earlier versions of paragraphs, discarding all improvements that had been made in the meantime. This has nothing to do with the examples and motivations you give above.

I have no clue what you might be referring to when you state: "Your logic, that descriptions of humanitarian activities necessarily means they hold no fundamentalist beliefs or ties to terrorist groups is your original research." I have not stated, suggested, or implied, anything of the kind. Are you mistaking me for someone else? By the way, "ties" is a very general and loose term; if a member of the AAA has donated money to the al-Haramain Foundation, does that tie the AAA to that organization?  --Lambiam 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned strictly with facts and accuracy from reliable sources, and as such will not respond to your personal red herring about AAA. Your allegation that "'ties' is a very general and loose term" is your original research. At Wikipedia we are concerned about sources, and if reliable or notable sources describe those specific ties, then we include them as such from the source.

You did in fact write: "...likewise a point can be made that characterizations of IHH by reliable sources that depict it as a benevolent organization do have a role here." That, again, is your original research. I don't know what you mean by "depict it as a benevolent organization"—this laundry list of sources simply gives a one-line uncontroversial description of the organization. It is not intended to prove or deny that the IHH has ties to terrorists, as you imply by insinuating it can counter other sources it does not intend to counter. That logic, in fact, necessarily depends on the erroneous notion that a group involved in humanitarian activities categorically cannot have ties to terrorist groups. Involvement in humanitarian activities does not necessarily = "benevolence," and "benevolence" does not necessarily = no ties to groups that other sources allege. Those descriptions have nothing to do with terror ties or fundamentalist ideology, and are not intended to debunk any such allegations thereof as you essentially purport them to be. Lastly, your response seems intentionally vague. It does not address the careful, step-by-step critique of your edits and or the edits you say you support. Certainly, per above, the last thing they can be described as are "improvements," but factually flawed and extremely messy and irrelevant. I carefully looked at every edit and explained why it is is or is not appropriate. No time for red herrings. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Importance of this dispute

I think that when you have a subject as ideologically charged as this one, where the accusations and counter accusations are equally the product of political sympathies and ideological proclivities, the contestation of fact itself becomes more significant and relevant then the normative preference, i.e. an imaginary idea of a clear, defined and uncontested truth. (Not to suggest at all that all claims are thus equally valid) But even if some of the claims have been manipulated to suit a particular agenda, it is better that they lie ugly, contested, unsubstantiated and disempowered. It is a better reflection of the nature of this topic. In my mind it is irresponsible to try and figure out a depoliticized version of this issue as wikipedia editors are often compelled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.118.71 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What you are appear to be suggesting is that we, as editors, should not follow Wikipedia policy with regard to ideologically charged articles, but leave them to be the playing field of unscrupulous POV pushers. Many other articles have a subject as ideologically charged as this one, and I think that taking this seemingly morally high ground would lead to a fast and dramatic decline in the quality of our encyclopedia, letting Wikiality win the battle. But really, this talk page is not the right forum for discussing this general point; its sole purpose is to discuss how to improve this specific article. You are welcome to argue the case for changing Wikipedia's core policies in this respect at the policy section of the Wikipedia "Village pump". Until such time as you have achieved a consensus in giving a new direction (or lack of direction) to policy, I think the best approach is if we all try to stick to it.  --Lambiam 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations terrorist organizations - Others positions

should we consider this informations and add them ? In a respond about eventual terrorist links, Nu Bolat, a French specialist of Turkey who work for IFRI,[6] the French Institute for International Studies, says about IHH : " "His goals are humanitarian, she wants to help Muslims all over the world, for example in the past in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Africa. But his priority is clearly the plight of Palestinians." Its activities have also been banned by Israel, which sees it as an organization close to Hamas, which it would transmit weapons. "This link is to prove," qualifies the researcher."[7] ( It's a French source from a national newspaper) - And both of France and Germany didn't ban IHH. Samuel B52 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as bringing something new to the article. The last bit is subsumed by the currently included statement "Israel remains the only country which has banned the group"; we could perhaps include that the EU did not designate IHH, but it doesn't seem important to me. For the rest, there is a flurry of published statements of the nature: "According to Bruguière/Kohlmann/Israel/ITIC IHH is bad, but according to IHH/Turkey IHH is good." It is pointless to pile this up in the article; we need less of this, not more. What we can use (in my opinion):

• Statements by people or institutions that have a specific notability with respect to the issues, and that offer a direct assessment of IHH or the allegations (rather than merely acknowledging the existence of such allegations). For example, Ban Ki-moon has a specific role in the Middle-East peace process, so if he were to say something on the issue, that is important.
• An analysis of the allegations (beyond stating that they exist and are controversial) by reputable and reliable sources.
• A description (and if available an analysis) of the PR offensive by reputable and reliable sources.

 --Lambiam 11:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)