Talk:Al-Haq

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NGO Monitor

77.103.124.152, NGO Monitor are not an WP:RS for factual information especially about a living person. They can be used as a source for information about NGO Monitor as an organization and their own opinions. If you would like to include factual information sourced to NGO Monitor you need to establish that they are a reliable source for the specific information in this specific context via WP:RS/N. Secondly, "activities related to his involvement in the PFLP since 1985" does not comply with WP:NPOV. No evidence of "his involvement in the PFLP" has been made available so this is not a verifiable fact, it's an accusation, an unverifiable claim and should be presented as such via something like "his alleged involvement". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..and Canada Free Press are not an RS by default. They publish opinion pieces not factual pieces. Again, you would need to establish that they are a reliable source for the specific information in this specific context via WP:RS/N. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean- if the evidence cited by a government is secret for reasons of national security, that does not mean that there is a blanket ban on citing it as a justification. The article presents the issue as if Jabarin was denied free movement on completely arbitrary grounds. What the NGO Monitor article does, citing uncontested facts (i.e that Jabarin has been in administrative detention for eight collective years) only provides clarity as to the Israeli government's long-standing assertion that Jabarin is involved with the PFLP. Clearly, there is sufficient evidence to justify denying his movement on the basis of that claim, as it succeeded in front of a tribunal which had access to evidence which was available exclusively to them on the grounds of national security. This does not mean that he is necessarily involved with the PFLP, just that there are clearly grounds cited by the Israeli government which satisfied the Supreme Court. It certainly does no injustice to Jabarin, or the reader, to understand that this is not an isolated, arbitrary decision on the part of Israel, but rather part of a long-standing argument over Jabarin's alleged involvement with the PFLP.

Now, I have cited ABC news, which cites the same court documents that are apparently sourced by Al Haq (which is still not justified as a reliable source on matters pertaining to this affair, in my opinion). I hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.124.152 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine to me. Don't forget you can always use Israeli RS like JPost and Haaretz. It might be easier to find relevant articles although having said that, JPost appear to be in the middle of an upgrade so their site is a bit dysfunctional at the moment. It's also trashed all of the existing JPost citations in wiki which probably number in the thousands so if you fancy a mindnumbingly boring task replacing the urls with ones from google's cache this is a rare opportunity...

To be a bit clearer, I didn't say 'there is a blanket ban on citing it as a justification'. It's fine doing that as long as it comes from an RS. It's just about using sources that are designated as reliable in wikipedia and being careful about what is said without attribution using wikipedia's narrative voice. i.e. to make it clear that it is, as you say, the "Israeli government's long-standing assertion that Jabarin is involved with the PFLP." rather than wikipedia just flat out saying "Jabarin is involved with the PFLP" as if it is a fact. It's spelled out in Wikipedia:Npov#A_simple_formulation, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

Al Haq/Jabarin are a reliable source for their own statements and opinions about the issue just like Shin Bet and the HCJ are reliable sources for their own statements and opinions about the issue. From our perspective we have no way of knowing who's right and it doesn't matter anyway. We just need to comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP(for Jabarin specific info). Sean.hoyland - talk 11:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Sean. Thank you for your clarification and cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.124.152 (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism and controversy

sean.hoyland - why was the criticism and controversy section removed? there is indeed plenty of of criticism and controversy over al haq. there are similar sections for hrw, ai, ngom, etc. - why not here?

the first item was this:

Al Haq is a leader in the anti-Israel "lawfare" movement. Its case against the British government to end export licenses to Israel was dismissed by the UK Court of Appeal on November 25, 2008. Al Haq originally brought the case in November 2006 to "secure the implementation of the July 2004 [ICJ] Advisory Opinion on Israel's Wall."^[1]

to which you removed the controversial and critical sentence and left the other information. not clear as to why?

the second item was this:

Al Haq regularly submits politically motivated reports to the UN Human Rights Council. For example, the Civic Coalition to Defend Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem – a coalition comprised of 18 NGOs including Al Haq, Miftah, Defense of Children International/Palestine Section (DCI/PS) and PWGAAC -- falsely claims that Israel engages in "racial segregation," has enacted a policy of "Judaization" in Jerusalem, and implies Israel is falsifying Jewish historical ties to Jerusalem.^[2]

you removed this completely. it is a complaint and criticism of al haq that they do this. why remove it? thanks. Soosim (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

al haq and btselem

dlv - you reverted my edit. i don't see it in the RS as you suggest. (not sure the RS is RS but that's a different story). this is the link, yes? http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc181.html#previous - i do not see the use of the word 'counterpart' anywhere. they are two separate and completely independent organizations with no 'counterpart' on either side or anywhere. Soosim (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of this passage is cited to a supposed CBS article named "The case of al-Haq". the link is dead[1] and Gooogle search for the article title produces no relevant results,[2]. Furthermore Google search for the quote recently added to the article (“most of its members are supporters of Fatah and other members of the PLO terrorist organization”) supported by this source produces no hits at all.[3] Dlv999 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

again: i am having a problem with the word 'counterpart' - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterpart - these two organizations are not counterparts. let's find a different word. how about we leave it non-pov just state that both organizations won the prize? Soosim (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited source: "Two groups, one Israeli and one Palestinian, which document human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, were selected to share the $100,000 Carter-Menil Rights Award today."

Our article: "Al-Haq and its counterpart, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, were co-recipients of the Carter-Menil Human Rights Prize in 1989"

From your dictionary def: "one having the same function or characteristics as another"

According to the cited RS these are two groups (one Israeli, one Palestinian), "which document human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip". They are two groups "having the same function or characteristics as another" ie they are counterparts. Dlv999 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone can address the points raised above regarding the material attached to "The case of al-Haq" source I intend to delete it as unverifiable. Dlv999 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) dlv - what passage are you referring to? the case of al haq was from a book, not a cbs article, no? b) and i removed the award material anyway from that section since there is nothing to indicate that al haq has anything to do with btselem. Soosim (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Haq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212232823/http://cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc181.html to http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc181.html#previous

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Haq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Al-Haq الحك meaning is The Truth Hamdala99 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Al-Haqq? Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: the August 2022 raid and closure of Al-Haq's West Bank office (along with six other Palestinian human rights groups) by Israeli forces, which was reported in the international media. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "cite web|url=https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/130475|title=" (ref 48) to "{{cite web |url=https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/130475 |title=Israeli forces raid offices of several Palestinian CSOs in Ramallah}}" (add curly brackets and title, not sure about spaces, but they don't seem to matter). 176.247.136.49 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Jabarin

The mention that the group’s executive director, Shawan Jabarin, has been convicted of recruiting and training PFLP terrorists by Israel, is lacking. However it is an important fact to clarify the situation regarding its alleged link to PFLP. Bageralg (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dismissal of UK Court of Appeal's case

[2] The Civic Coalition to Defend Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem’s Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council

[1]

[2]