Talk:Human Appeal

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

A previous version of this article [7] identified Human Appeal International as a charity accused of ties to terrorism. A subsequent edit removed this claim. Should it be reinstated, since it is not certain whether the accusation is true? Please see the list at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "of course". But then I started the article, and I inserted that text. I am going to leave a message on the talk page of the contributor who removed that content without offering an explanation. But I also intend to reinstate it.

Whether the accusation is true is not important. The material that was removed did not say the accusations were true. The material that was removed merely said Guantanamo detainees continued to be held, in part, because American intelligence analysts considered the charity to be tied to terrorism. That American intelligence analysts consider the charity to be tied to terrorism is verifiable from an authoritative source. So, of course it merits inclusion in the article.

FWIW, the US intelligence and counter-terrorism establishment has numerous, inconsistent lists of organizations they regard as linked to terrorism. See SECOND REPORT ON THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES: Inter- and Intra-Departmental Disagreements About Who Is Our Enemy (.pdf), Denbeaux & Denbeaux, March 20 2006

No point asking User:Jimfarmer to explain his edit. His contribution record shows just 8 edits. The first four were unsourced and POV. The last four, viewed together, seem clearly to be acts of vandalism. And the user was subsequently blocked.

I haven't looked at this article in a long time. I see the Guantanamo based terrorism allegations have been removed again, without a meaningful explanation.

I am calling for an explanation now. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section on the guantanamo allegations without waiting for the exciser to respond to my request. The exciser only made three edits to the wikpedia, over a year ago. Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

explanation

I removed material that not only looked like an advertisement, but which also looked like a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hamas section text

On October 8, User:84.92.45.81 deleted nearly all the text in the "Hamas" section. The user's edit summary said: "Removing false information." I reviewed the text he deleted as well as the sources. The information presented in that section, in my assessment, was backed up with satisfactory supporting evidence. I believe the edit was improper and thus, am reverting it. Parvana fattahov (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A different IP address - reverted a large chunk of information claiming that some finding of the charity commission finding (not a criminal investigation body, intelligence agency, etc.), at present sourced to a source not even mentioning Human Appeal, making this false in some manner. Regardless - this is widely covered, and the organization being listed as "banned association" in Israel (in which it also operated) is factual.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC).

On the contrary, this isn't factual. Human Appeal are not banned and have never been banned from Israel and operate there to this day. They run multiple projects in West Bank and Gaza that they would be unable to do without cooperation from Israeli government.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs)

I don't know what they run and how they run it on the ground, however the Israeli announcement is quite clear - Defense Minister signs order banning Hamas-affiliated charitable organizations 2008 and refers to Human Appeal International (UAE, Britain , Australia) - referring to the UAE, Britain, and Australia branches as one collective entity. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That isn't clear - the Human Appeal International based in UAE could have branches in these countries, seperate from the Human Appeal of this Wikipedia page and as the UK Charity Commission shows there is no evidence that the UAE organisation are linked with this one . Also Human Appeal would not be able to operate in Gaza or West Bank if they were banned by Israel . — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Confusion over name of the organisation

Firstly there are a lot of sources being included in this page which refer to either Human Appeal International, an organisation based in UAE or another Human Appeal which is based in Australia - neither of these are the same organisation as Human Appeal. They have similar names. Unfortunately, journalists working for credible news sources have made this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Human Appeal UK used to be Human Appeal International prior to changing their logo and name. In any event, absent a correction from the multiple WP:RS who associate this organization from Hamas funding - they are quite simply reliable. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Human Appeal UK used to be called Human Appeal International, however changed their name (partly to differentiate themselves from the organisation with a similar name in the UAE) Human Appeal International are still running to this day and are completely seperate from the organisation that this wiki page is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The history of this article is also confusing with regards to Human Appeal vs Human Appeal International. So it looks like the article was originally written as Human Appeal International and then swapped-out/ changed somewhat to the same article with new name. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Appeal&diff=prev&oldid=758450749 TeeVeeed (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

They dropped the International at some point, but the UK branch was known as "international" - see e.g. Here. As for claiming the UAE and UK orgs are different - well - this is refuted by - Telegraph - "According to Oborne, Human Appeal’s UK branch claims that it is a “separate organisation to Human Appeal UAE [United Arab Emirates],” to which the Wikileaks and FBI allegations refer. Wrong again. The UK branch’s own website states that they are divisions of the same organisation. The UK and UAE branches’ logos are the same, apart from the translation of the charity's name into Arabic. In any case, the 101 Days Campaign website and the Israeli ban specifically refer to the UK branch.". So - this particular attempt as obsfucation by claiming the UK branch is somehow separate in a meaningful sense has been dealt with by RS.Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you actually look at what Mr Gilligan claims in this article it is clear he is wrong. The logos were similar, but quite different. Human Appeal have since gone to lengths to make sure they are more different. ANd neither Human Appeal or Human Appeal International in the UAE claim they are the same organisation. I think we need to be careful of confusing a journalists attempt to dig himself out of a hole with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

About the rebranding/logo I am finding it pretty interesting that the new chosen logo cannot be used when addressing religious aspects because it represents a human? https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/24-30-september-2018/human-appeal-gets-a-new-visual-identity-designed-by-johnson-banks/ "“We also developed a series of patterns for when they carry out religious appeals and can’t use imagery,” he adds." is there any room in article space for this?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, it looks to me like Human Appeal and Human Appeal International are the same group or WERE the same group, so saying that they are "entirely different groups" is going to be a problem. If anyone wants to work on text that clarifies further the "split" differences/re-branding and submit it here for consensus I am good with that, but please let's try not to make confusing summaries or misleading article edits.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about edit comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Appeal&oldid=871019611 So this comment, "Please read the source - this is a claim made about a different organisation to Human Appeal. Human Appeal International who are based in the UAE. They are different organisations This is not relevant.)" REALLY has me confused. I DID read the sourced ref and it stated a large section about this. Editor later posts different source refuting, but when you tell us to "read the source" and the sourced material confirms what is said in article, that is a problem?

(from the source; "In leaked cables from the same year published by Wikileaks, the US State Department also accused Human Appeal of providing “financial support to organizations associated with Hamas” and alleged that “members of its field offices in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya had connections to al-Qaeda associates.”

In Britain, Human Appeal co-hosted a July 2011 event at Brent Town Hall in north London with a number of Hamas supporters and hate preachers, including Raed Saleh, who describes Jews as “bacteria” and “monkeys”.

A British court found that Saleh perpetrated the “blood libel” against Jews, claiming that they used the blood of gentile children to bake their bread.

In December of the same year, Human Appeal hosted an event at the extremist East London Mosque with one of Britain’s most notorious hate preachers, Haitham al-Haddad, who says that Jews are the “brethren of swine and pigs”.

In 2012 Human Appeal was banned from using public property, a school in Manchester, for fundraising after an intervention by the Department for Education’s counter-extremism unit.

Mr Moqbel and other MCF figures have been granted security passes for the conference allowing them to mix freely with MPs, ministers and the Prime Minister." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11910236/Terror-link-charity-was-due-to-host-joint-official-reception-with-Tory-party.html" TeeVeeed (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Please read the source was in reference to the CIA claim, which clearly refers an organisation in UAE and/or Jordan, not the Human Appeal set up in the UK in 1991 and is registered with the UK Charity Commission and is recognised by Israel and conducts work in Gaza and West Bank to this day (which would be impossible if it was banned by Israeli government) . Rebuttals to the rest of these "unsubstantiated" claims were provided by Peter Oborne and Human Appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page about your edits! And ty for clarifying. Unfortunately when you comment "please read source" and source validates the disputed content, we have no way of knowing that you mean some OTHER or more current source that was not thereTeeVeeed (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. I am new to this. Thank you for being so understanding. It really is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Well, of course, I have to ask if you are related to this organization? And a request for page protection has been made, and also there are sanctions pointed-out so the talk page is where we should try to reach consensus here for now. It is much easier to understand each other here rather than edit summaries-thanks again. TeeVeeed (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No relations to organisaiton, except that I am a donor like I am to many charities. The latest edits by Icewhiz seem politically motivated. He cannot say Peter Oborne (a Daily Mail journalist) and the Middle East Eye are not reliable sources. It has been proven that this organisation is different to the UAE one and The Jewish Chronicle, who I am sure IceWhiz will say is a reliable source, has already apologised, retratched and paid significant damages for these claims. When a respected paper like the Jewish Chronicle has apologised for libel, why are we allowing Wikipedia to libel this organisaiton also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Well I do know that about a year or so ago, The Daily Mail was severely downgraded as a source here. Especially regarding news. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website . Also, the way that you keep saying that HA and HAI are not the same is problematic for me since they were the same and they are all boasting a 25+ year history (the same history) when they were the same organization? They both have the same history since there was a spit relatively recently, so the way that you keep implying that editors here are confused or mistaken is incorrect. We should differentiate somehow with example, (As Human Appeal International in 2003) or something?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

As evidenced in the talk sections above, there is clearly no consensus for this edit which furthermore uses an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE (unreliable in unreliable). We stick to mainstream WP:RSes. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The MEE is not unreliable. You seem determined to smear this organisation as some sort of Hamas front, even though organisations such as the Jewish Chronicle have been sued for make such false allegations and apologised. Do you not think the Jewish Chronicle are a reliable source? If you think they are, why are you repeating lies they themselves have claimed to be not true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveMilkychops (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The JC apologized for something very specific - " Human Appeal International, a British charity, had been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US government and had diverted donations to fund terror and to support the families of suicide bombers.". Human Appeal has indeed not been designated by the US (though it is mentioned by various US agencies). JC's apology - has nothing to do with The Daily Telegraph's reporting - which occurred afterwards. An article in the Telegraph - is a WP:RS. In contrast - an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist writing in the Middle East Eye (a Qatari-funded website [8][9]) - is not. WP:IDONTLIKE or WP:OR (false OR in this case) is not reason to removed well sourced content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Peter Oborne is the associate editor of The Spectator, one of the most respected news magazines in the UK and just because you do not like MEE does not mean it is not a valid source. Meanwhile Andrew Gilligan is a suspected Islamophobe who is obsessed with "exposing" Muslim organisations who have nothing to do with terrorism. His article is much more reliable and than Gilligan's. CliveMilkychops (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)