Jump to content

Talk:IHH (Turkish NGO)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.96.173.41 (talk) at 04:11, 8 June 2010 (→‎References from WSWS.org). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTurkey Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

General

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For what it's worth: İHH is not listed on any of:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 no 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

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)[reply]

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

As a model Wikipedian, I'm sure you'd be glad to paraphrase it accordingly. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a model Wikipedian, I'm sure you will remove the copyright violation immediately. nableezy - 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IHH_(Turkish_NGO)&oldid=366718498"