Talk:List of charities accused of ties to terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

Charities accused of ties to terrorismCharities referred to in connection with terrorism – Similar to List of cults being changed to List of groups referred to as cults the new title distances Wikipedia from having the appearance of being the accuser. The logic for this is similar to the reason that September_11,_2001_attacks article is not entitled September_11,_2001_terrorist_attacks and much like that article wherein it's established that the acts were terrorism, this article can establish that these charities are accused of ties to terrorism apart from the title (see how Encarta and Britannica refer to 9/11 attacks). In this way the 'at first glance' separation between Wikipedia and those doing the accusing is established even before one reads the article.

Add *Support or *Oppose preferably adding a brief comment, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as nominator for reasons specified above. Netscott 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think "referred to" is unnecessarily weak, and "accused of" is more accurate. In fact, I'd prefer "accused of supporting terrorism" over the current "accused of ties to terrorism", since that is, I believe, the main issue here. GRuban 17:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me just say I don't feel very strongly either way, and it all is basically moot, but I Oppose the proposed name change and agree with GRuban's "accused of supporting terrorism." KI 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly either, however "accused of" is more appropriate and doesn't sound strange. So oppose. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is repeating the accusing by reporting it and therefore should say so. Raphael1 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Identifying courts as more or less reliable than other "reputable sources" is problematic. Whilst the changed title's more verbose, it also clearly provides WP an NPOV detachment. Nysin 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title is perfectly fine as is. It means just what it says: Charities accused of ties to terrorism. I see nothing about the title or the article that would make anyone conclude that the accusations come from Wikipedia itself. wikipediatrix 14:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments
  • Alternative - add (as with terrorist-suspects in the Converts to Islam section) another category: charities suspected of terrorist links (of course, by reputable sources) and charities which have been identified by courts as supporters of terrorism. --Xorox 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All the titles suggested above seem neutral to me. But I strongly oppose the renaming we experienced on April 3rd, where a contributor unilaterally renamed the article Charities with ties to terrorism. That choice implies that the connection is a real, proven connection. I would strongly oppose that choice, or any similarly POV choices. -- Geo Swan 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With the accuser column, the specific wording of the title seems less important, since it's clearer who precisely is doing the accusing and that Wikipedia is merely reporting. Nysin 12:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing NPOV title tag[edit]

It's been a week since the proposal was made, and discussion seems to have died down. I count two supports, five opposes, and two neutrals, and one of the supports seems to have weakened his support later, above, so I think we've reached a rough consensus that the current title is good enough. Thank you all for your help. -- GRuban 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

This article title is very wrong... and seriously suffers from a lack of NPOV. 'Accused'? Who's doing the accusing? WikiPedia? I don't think so! See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_which_can_advance_a_point_of_view. Netscott 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you see that each charity has at least one link to a source where they are accused?
The wikipolicy recommends caution in the use of words like "accused" because they often "lack a verifiable source"
Each of the charities listed here is backed up by a verifiable source. -- Geo Swan 14:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand, the problem with that title is that an individual is obliged to tease out who's doing the accusing. Prima facie one could assume that WikiPedia was doing the accusing which is very wrong. Netscott 14:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if the title is changed to be more NPOV the actual specific parties doing the accusing need to be included in the article and not simply link reffed due to the fact that reffed websites/pages frequently vanish. Such accusations are not to be taken lightly. Netscott 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
While I see your point, I don't think most readers will assume that Wikipedia is necessarily the subject of any unattributed verb. For example, if we have a page titled "People named George", surely readers will not assume Wikipedia took over the role of naming them.
Anyway, what's your suggestion for renaming it? Do you prefer KI's "Charities with ties to terrorism"? It avoids the verb ... :-) GRuban 15:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I see your suggestion that the individual reader not be obliged with determining who is doing the accusing. I would be interested in how you reconcile this suggestion with the policy of NPOV.
Yes, links do expire. And when we see that they have, we look for mirrors. Opinions seem to differ as to what to do if no mirrors can be found. Some wikipedia contributors remove all 404 links they come across, without looking for mirrors. Some wikipedia contributors look for mirrors first, then remove them. Some wikipedia contributors leave 404 links on the theory that the title and name of publication still allows the determined researcher to look up the paper version. Personally, I have found that I am able to find mirrors when others have failed.
IMO the individual charities named is the appropriate place for the details of the accusation. Some contributors to the Jamat al Tabligh article don't like having their article repeating the accusations. I think there objections are misplaced, so long as the paragraph(s) that deal with the accusation is NPOV.
These accusations are undoubtedly unpleasant for any innocent people who work for, volunteer for, or donate to those charities. But the accusations are out there, and should not be ignored.
Some might argue that the accusations should not be repeated, since they seem incredible. Nevertheless individuals remain in detention at Guantanamo largely or entirely because they were tied to these charities. Those who find the accusations hard to believe can't say so in the article space. That would show bias. If we find credible, verifiable, external sources that comment on the credibility of accusations, summaries of those criticisms would belong in the article space. I have my eyes peeled for them. Feel free to keep your eyes peeled too.
Who made these accusations? Ultimately, all of these charities are accused by some branch of the U.S. intelligence establishment. There may very well be charities accused of ties to terrorism by other bodies. I haven't come across any. But, if I were, I would put them here. If we were still in the Cold War maybe the USSR would be accusing some charities of ties to terrorism.
Since you think the article's title is POV I will look forward to your suggestions of alternate titles. -- Geo Swan 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Geoswan, thank you for taking the time to give me such an in depth response. I'm working out in my mind a title that would be the right size but a bit more NPOV. I plan to have a response in the next day or two. Netscott 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New Title[edit]

Ok, in discussing the title change with User:Freakofnurture in IRC today he mentioned how the former title of List of cults was altered to List of groups referred to as cults and that made sense to me. So I propose a title change to:
Charities referred to in connection with terrorism
Or something in that spirit, I think such a title is about as NPOV as one could get. Comments? Netscott 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is better in terms of the objections raised above - we still aren't specifying who is doing the referring, right? On the other hand, it is clearly worse in terms of specificity, since the sources in our references are pretty clearly "accusing", not just "referring". So we lose conciseness and accuracy while gaining ... what, exactly? GRuban 15:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The word "Accused" is much like "alleged" and "alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid. A similar example would be the September 11, 2001 attacks which were originally called September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At first I thought the word "terrorist" should be in the title of that article but when I did some research I discovered that professional ecyclopedias don't use that word in their titles. Netscott 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And "referred to" is less like "alleged" because it doesn't begin with "a"? :-)
See, that guideline you cite specifically says: "These words can imply doubt, and smear a viewpoint, because they often lack a verifiable source or exact details." I am afraid I don't see why "referred to" is any better than "accused" in that regard.
In fact, I think "accused" is better than "referred to", specifically because it's a term with a more definite meaning, that more clearly describes the attitude of the sources in respect to the charities.
Now I'm all for changing the article title to something better, but I just don't see why this is better, and not worse. GRuban 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Well of course these charities are clearly accused of ties to terrorism but just like how Encarta and Britannica and other professional level encyclopedias don't use the 'active' word in their titles, they do use them in the subject matter. The logic for this is that the "at first site" neutrality of those encyclopedias' articles are maintained. Like I mentioned earlier the word "accused" can tend to make a reader at first site assume that Wikipedia is the one doing the accusing. By using the word "referred" Wikipedia neutralizes the title and distances itself from the misperception of being the accuser. Why do you think the editors for the List of cults changed the title as they did? Netscott 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it's longer, it's definitely a more neutral title. Move per above. — Apr. 10, '06 [17:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>

OK, I think I understand the point now. I admit, I still don't agree with it -- I think the title should even be "Charities accused of supporting terrorism", which I think is the most accurate title for the content -- but if there's a majority who sees it the other way, I'll accept being outvoted. Have we started on a straw poll? -- GRuban 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll set one up... give me a sec. Netscott 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please add your opinion above. Thanks, Netscott 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification?[edit]

The "ties" column doesn't make sense to me. Global Relief Foundation supports terrorism because their Bosnian offices were shut down on US request? Another: "Sent unauthorized funds to Saddam's Iraq"? What does that mean? Most of these aren't "ties to terrorism". Anyway, I think my main point is: The accusations should be explained, or they should be removed from the list. Mrtea (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What about two categories: unproven accusations and proven accusations?--Xorox 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mrtea's main point, however every entry seems linked to a reference. I'm not sure what "unproven/proven" means in this context. Meaning proven to the satisfaction of a court? Even that could be debatable; I'm pretty sure Iran's courts would make decisions that Israel wouldn't be too happy with, and vice versa. Let's just describe who is making the accusation, and what it is, and leave it at that. GRuban 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proven in a court of law?[edit]

We know some of the details of some of the evidence linking some of the charities to Islamic fighters because it came out in court. When it came out in court though, it came out incidentally, when individuals who worked for or volunteered for those charities were charged. Does evidence to back up a charge against an individual -prove- that the organization was tied to Islamic fighters?
Personally, I don't think so.
I don't believe any of the organizations has had a trial of its own. If that is so, then none of the organizations have been proven to be tied to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-judicial proof?[edit]

Is it possible that the intelligence officials have conducted some kind of private, secret, non-judicial review of some of these charities? It would certainly have made sense for them to have done so. The Roman Catholic Church used to have a kind of trial of every candidate for sainthood. That is where the term devil's advocate came from. A priest was delegated to make the best case he could that the candidate wasn't a saint, and to make his best effort to challenge all the evidence that a candidate was a saint. We can't know for sure whether US intelligence officials took this step for these charities. If we had access to the conclusions of this kind of responsible, professional, methodical review, I'd agree to call those conclusions proven. But we don't, because if they did them -- well, they are secret. -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple of months ago a US Congression Representative held some hearings where he called upon officials he thought could shed light on how some organizations ended up on lists of terrorist organizations. Three and a half years I wrote of the possibility that intelligence agencies had conducted sober, meaningful, professional, reviews of the allegations the organizations that ended up on lists of terrorist organizations. The public record, however, seems to show that they did not -- that no one recorded the initial reasons some organizations fell under suspicion, or that they were placed on the lists solely for political support, to garner support for the Iraq invasion from repressive countries that regarded their domestic dissidents as terrorists, just for expressing civil challenges to the central authority, or because, when translated into English, their name was similar to another organization that did have ties to terrorism. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The role of our personal opinions on the strength of the allegations?[edit]

What role should our personal opinions on the strength of the allegations play in what we write about them, whether we list new charities, or remove ones that have already been placed? Well, the policy of WP:NPOV plays a big role here. We are supposed to set our personal opinions aside, and write from a neutral point of view.
When I am writing on a controversial topic I consider my efforts to adopt an NPOV tone a success if a casual reader can't guess at my personal opinions. -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rafil Dhafir and Help the Needy[edit]

I'd call the links of some of these charities to Islamic fighters "strong". I'll agree with User:Mrtea, and Rafil Dhafir's defense attorneys, that the evidence linking Dhafir to terrorism sounds weak. Dhafir's attorneys objected to a "sentencing memorandum" -- whatever that is -- that linked Dhafir and Help the Needy to terrorism. They said that the prosecutors didn't lay any terrorism charges against Dhafir because they knew they didn't have any evidence against him, so he wasn't fair for the sentencing memorandum to state or imply he was tied to terrorism.
But that is my personal opinion.
I've been following the GWOT -- the Global War on Terror -- closely, in particular, I have been following the treatment of detainees in the GWOT. I think the GWOT is important. I think full coverage of the full extent and implications of the GWOT requires accurate coverage of the accusations against these charities.
It seems to me that charities whose link to terrorism are tenuous or lack credibility are being treated as seriously as those who intelligence officials know serve as a conduit to Islamic fighters because they still have the paperwork from when they used them as a conduit to use those fighters against the Soviets. My personal opinion is that this is dishonest of the Bush administration. They are scrambling for cases that will justify the steps they have taken to abridge the rights of US citizens, US resident aliens, illegal aliens, and captives in the GWOT. They claimed that these measures allowed them to foil a dozen terrorist plots in North America.
It strikes me as likely that Ashcroft counted arresting Dhafir as among those success stories. It would be wrong for me to state these opinions in the main article space. It would show just as much of a POV bias as User:KI's renaming last week of this article to Charities with ties to terrorism. That renaming showed bias because it assumed something that has yet to be proven -- that the charities are, in fact tied to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[1] doesn't seem to suggest that anyone but "prosecutors again offered information alleging possible ties to terrorist organizations in arguing that Dhafir was a national security risk". Further, the Jury apparently only said:
A jury found Dhafir guilty of misusing $2 million that donors gave to his unlicensed charity, Help the Needy, and spending $544,000 for his own purposes.
The jury said Dhafir - an Iraqi-born oncologist who practiced in Rome, N.Y. - also defrauded Medicare out of $316,000 by billing for treatments as if he'd been in his office, when, in fact, he was out of state or overseas. Additionally, Dhafir was found guilty of evading $400,000 in federal income tax payments by writing off the illegal charity donations.
Given that, did a U.S. jury really accuse him or the charity with which he was associated of terrorism? Nysin 13:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Jury? You mean a grand jury? Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly tied him to terrorism.
We don't have grand juries in most of the rest of the world. Normally prosecutors lay the charges. I am unclear on when a US prosecutor can lay charges without reference to a grand jury, and when a gj is required.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where should we detail the accusations?[edit]

Where is the best place for detailing the accusations, and the public rebutals, if any, of those accusations?
I started this article, and the articles about both Help the Needy and Rafil Dhafur. It seemed to me that the best place to summarize the allegations against Dhafir, and the response by his defense, was in Dhafir's article.
I am completely open to discussing other locations. Initially I thought the appropriate place to detail the accusations was in the individual articles about each charity.
If I understand Mrtea correctly, he thinks that the details of the accusations belong here. I don't see this as workable, because this list could easily grow to include one hundred or more charities. Putting the details here would, IMO, make it too hard to read.
I've mentioned my experience with the other contributors to the Jamat al Tabligh article. There is resistance to putting this material there, on grounds of credibility. There are recent reports, for instance, that 19 year old Murat Kurnaz ended up being captured, in part, because he stayed briefly in a Jamat al Tabligh sponsored guest-house. Some contributors to that article want to remove the allegations, because, in their personal opinion, they aren't credible. Some contributors to that article want to respond, personally, to those allegations, because they consider them weak. I am sympathetic to their feelings. But that is not the way the wikipedia is supposed to work. No matter how incredible the claim of an individual, organization or government is, we can't personally rebut it. That would violate the no original research policy. If a claim is that lacking in credibility then there may very well be a credible, verifiable external source that rebuts the claim. And, if we can't find an external source that rebuts the claim? In that case I think we lay out the claim, and the evidence, if any, that backs it up, and rely on the intelligence of the reader to decide for themselves whether the claim is credible. We can, of course, keep our eyes peeled for new external commentaries.
But there should probably be one place, where the most detailed summary of the accusations is placed, with other articles referring readers there with something like {{main | [[Accusations against Jamat al Tabligh of ties to terrorism]]}} -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Where should the accusers be named[edit]

All of the accusations here ultimately came from US officials. The article doesn't currently state this. Someone suggested each entry should say who, ultimately, the accusation could be traced to.
I have suggested we take the feelings of supporters of Jamat al Tabligh into account, even if a strict reading of the procedures says that doing so in unnecessary. If we can save pointless cycles of revisions back and forth by starting a separate article to summarize the accusations against Jamat, and that spares us all the cylces of revisions, we should do so. Similarly, if refraining from being pointed about the source of the accusations saves us from pointless cycles of revisions from supporters of America who feel the same kind of distress the Jamat supporters felt, why not save that hassle? -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The charities removed from the list two months ago[edit]

Mrtea, you sent me a heads-up, two months ago, repeating your concern about the amount of proof against the charities. I wasn't paying enough attention, and I missed a set of changes you made, where you removed: Maktab-ul-Khedamat, Ittehad-e-Islami, Hizb-e-Islami, Afghan Support Committee, Al Kifah Refugee Center. I thought providing a link to an article or other documeent that included the accusation a charity was sufficient. I've started some articles. But I don't want to be proprietorial about them. And doing so would be a violation of the WP:OWN policy. The wikipedia is a work in progress. Red-links aren't something to be feared or avoided. They represent an opportunity for other contributors to join in. -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope and title[edit]

The current article would be more accurately called "Islamic Charities who have been smeared as having terrorist links mainly by US government organizations". Which is a long title. The article certainly doesn't match it current broad title. No mention of Basque or Irish groups. Certainly no mention of Abramoff's charity and it's funding of weapons[2]. No mention of false allegations [3]. - Xed 11:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Then fix it. All that information seems quite suitable for placement here. (Unless it deserves an article to itself, in which case it should just at least get a link from here.) I'll put in the 2 you gave links to if you don't, but I know nothing about Basque or Irish groups. -- GRuban 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. GRuban 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • still crap - Xed 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi i'll have a look for any info on charities who have been linked with terrorism in the northern ireland troubles to see if this can stop being an islam only page (NORAID anyone?).Hypnosadist 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The terrorism sidebar significantly reduces the table's readability[edit]

IMO the terrorism sidebar significantly reduces the table's readability. Does it really add anything to the article to compensate for the reduction in readability? -- Geo Swan 03:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this one. I've changed the table structure around a bit. Netscott 04:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that looks a lot better.
Another change that I think would improve the readability and maintainability would be a change in the order of the fields, to name, country, accuser, ties. The ties field is the widest, and the field that is most likely to have bulleted points. I think tables that have entries where one or more fields may employ bulleted points are easier to manage if those are the last fields in the entry. If no one objects, I will make that change in a day or so. -- Geo Swan 06:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't hesitate to edit the "test" one above or just edit it and incorporate it into the main article space. Netscott 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is doing the accusing?[edit]

One entry in this list (Capital Athletic Foundation) is listed here due to the accusations of one guy, Juan Cole, which seems to violate wp:reliable. I have no idea if the Capital Athletic Foundation is actually connected to terrorism, however i would think it would take more than the say so of one partisan to be included in this list. Per wp:Bold i am removing this entry. Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If we can include an accusation by someones parents than we can include a tenured professor on the middle east. annoynmous 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a better idea, lets not include either. Bonewah (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Newsweeks Michael Iskikoff also made the accusation, so you can't claim it's just Cole. annoynmous 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed to Captial Athletic Foundation per a compromise offer I made to Bonewah. I guess technically you can't call the Israeli settlers terrorists, althought I feel they should be. annoynmous 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember that wikipedia does not call anyone anything it represents the verifiable sources. There is no real criteria that suggests who should be doing the accusing so as long as that person is someone of note then i dont a problem with it. In this case newsweek is the source so there are no real issue about reliability there. --neon white talk 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The newsweek article does not actually call them terrorist, it only says that they improperly got money from Abramoff. Juan Cole calls them "essentially terrorists" in the linked article, but this gets to the heart of my issue here, why is Juan Cole's say so enough to put a group in a list of terrorist organizations? Same with the Parents of Daniel Boim, not really in the same league as other accusers here such as the FBI, spanish police, US state department. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the article is verifiable, that would be the reason. This is not a list of terrorist organizations. It's a list of charities accused of ties to terrorism (lists needs renaming to comply with manual of style for lists) very big difference. I think a high profile civil court case covered in reliable sources probably makes their accusations of note. --neon white talk 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Because someone wrote an article about them once? That seems an awfully thin read on which to stand. Can we agree that the newsweek reference should be removed due to the fact that it does not back the stated claim (that the Captial Athletic Foundation is terrorist or has ties to terrorism)? Bonewah (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's its verifiable there. Yes, if newseek did not in fact repeat the claims. On the other subject, is this considered a list article? if not it needs to comply with Wikipedia:Embedded list. --neon white talk 08:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Verifiably what? Its verifiably Juan Cole's opinion, but that's still just one guy's opinion. I want to re-iterate here that this whole thing is based on a single line from an editorial claiming that these Israeli settlers are "essentially terrorists". We are pretty far removed from reliable sources if you ask me. Bonewah (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is also potentially a BLP issue, to be using a very marginal sources to claim that a group of identifiable people ((Beiter Illit settlers) are "essentially terrorists". NoCal100 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP or libel or both. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It is absolutely neither BLP or libel. If someone notable, here Juan Cole, makes the accusation it absolutely can go in, and we are explicitly citing Juan Cole. Nableezy (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to re-read reliable sources. How about we put this to a wider audience? RFC perhaps? Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Blogs may be used as RS, especially for sources of opinion of the author if the author is notable in the field in which he is writing. Juan Cole's blog meets those conditions. Nableezy (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The comment is not sourced t a blog, so that's a moot point. It is sourced to an op-ed in an openly partisan rag, and it is accusing living people of being terrorist. WP:BLP is very clear that only very good sources can be used for such allegations, an op-ed form a history professor in a partisan rag doesn't cut it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No you (Nableezy) are totally misunderstanding wp:sps. Flat out, the only thing blogs are a reliable source for is the opinions of the blog owner. As I have said several times, I have no doubt that Juan Cole is of the opinion that these people are terrorists, however, the opinion of one guy is not enough to call a group terrorist Now please stop telling me blogs are a RS, your wrong and its irrelevant anyway. Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
@ NoCal: You need to read BLP. Somebody saying that X group is a terrorist group is not a BLP issue. Saying that specifically this member of this group is a BLP issue. This is not a BLP issue, though I would be happy to take this to the BLP noticeboard to get another opinion. @Bonewah: A blog, as you just said, can be used for the opinion of the author. If your dispute is that the opinion is not notable that is a different discussion, but the argument I was speaking on was that we cannot use Juan Cole's blog or an oped by Juan Cole as a source for the opinions of Juan Cole, which is patent nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

<---(outdent) Nableezy, Every one of my comments in this section contains a line such as "why is Juan Cole's say so enough to put a group in a list of terrorist organizations?" or "i would think it would take more than the say so of one partisan to be included in this list." Would you please address my actual concerns? Bonewah (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for not addressing your concerns, the most serious ones were BLP and sourcing. I think I addressed those. As to this, we are not using Juan Cole's say so to flatly declare that a group should be in a list of terrorist organizations, we are using his say so to document the accusation that a charity has ties to terrorism. That is what this article is about right? Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In what way does your response address my concerns? All you did was restate what has already been established, that Juan Cole accuses them of having ties to terrorism. Again, I have no doubt that Juan Cole is of that opinion, but i feel that is should take more than the opinion of one marginal academic to be included in this list. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It addressed your concern of 'why is Juan Cole's say so enough to put a group in a list of terrorist organizations?' as I showed we are not using Juan Cole's say so to place a group in a list of terrorist organizations. And calling Juan Cole a 'marginal' academic isn't exactly accurate. If you want to argue on the notability of Juan Cole we can do that. Nableezy (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy correctly points out that it is an attributed opinion of a noted expert on the middle east and muslim-west relations. It complies with all policies. The reason why his opinion is included is because he is notable, the opinion is verifiable and above all there is no stated criteria for the list that requires otherwise. WP:BLP has no relevence to this, there isn't any claim about a specific third party so this is not considered 'biographical material'. --neon white talk 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we are at an impasse. Id rather put this to a wider audience than respond to the same non-answers ive been getting. Bonewah (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Or more accurately some WP:IDHT. Everything has been addressed here several times over. Seen as you cannot seem to stop yourself from edit waring when there is no consensus to change the article i have requested protection. --neon white talk 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well lack of consensus didn't stop you from editing the article, but you go ahead and request page protection if you like. Bonewah (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't edited the article i restored your removal. --neon white talk 11:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it take to be included on this list?[edit]

At issue here is this entry. The Capital Athletic Foundation is included based on an editorial by Juan Cole which contains the singular line

"But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which right-wing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory."

I feel this is not enough to be considered a legitimate accusation for purposes of this article, especially considering that the other accusers are such entities as the FBI and U.S. State Department. wp:libel and wp:rs come to mind here. Bonewah (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I humbly submit the title of the editorial is a bit more clear cut than the "essentially" line you have quoted. If it were merely the "essentially" line it could be debated whether he is actually accusing them of ties to terrorism, or merely comparing them. That title is, "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s 'Charity' a Front for Terrorism". That's unambiguous.
Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not Truth, but Verifiability and Notability. This article doesn't vouch for the accuracy of the accusers - it hardly could, given the dismal record of most of the accusing agencies at convicting their targets in any actual court. It merely lists notable, verifiable, accusations. This is one of them. --GRuban (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I advise you read this page from the top to see how this entry was added, back in 2006. One of the goals of adding it was to make this article a list of all notable and verifiable accusations, rather than being an alleged copy of the US government's lists.
If you look at Juan Cole's article, it marks him as a respected, if controversial, historian and political commentator. "From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East. His focus has primarily been Iraq, Iran, The Palestinian Authority, and Israel. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.[21] He has appeared on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News." If those sources can cite his views (without endorsing them), so can we. --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget The Colbert Report as well. It's very easy to find reputable sources that cite him as an expert or leading expert in this field. --neon white talk 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your using 'accused of' to skirt Verifiability and reliable source. If the title of the article were simply 'charities with ties to terrorism' Juan Cole's editorial wouldn't even be close to a reliable source, yet, if you add 'accused of' to the title, verifiability no longer matters? Bonewah (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
He didn't "add 'accused of' to the title", that is the title of the article. And it is verifiable that the charity in question has been 'accused of' having ties to terrorism. Nableezy (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If the article were titled "simply 'charities with ties to terrorism'" it would have to be nearly empty, since all of the accusations are strongly disputed, and darn few have ever been proven to the satisfaction of a court. (In fact, the one from "Daniel Boim's parents", so sneered at above, is one of the few that has been.) Please, do read the article and the talk page discussion, just above. It's right here. That's what it's for. Most of this argument has been argued before, 2 years ago. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The accusation of terrorism is fringe-worthy at best. I can't find any other evidence to corroborate such findings, and regardless, Juan Cole is a consistent critic of Israel. Hardly an objective candidate. The EU and US do not consider giving "sniping lessons" and rifles to settlers as terrorism. It is legal in the territory. If anything, the charity could be accused of fraud, but that's for a different article if one exists. this will likely turn into a typical PvI convo so I suggest a dispute resolution as soon as possible. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
We do not censor on wikipedia and certainly not on the basis of one editors opinion that a person is a critic, it simply isnt relevant. The opinions that matter consider him a leading expert. We base articles on sources, this article isnt based on which charities we think or do not think are linked to terrorism. --neon white talk 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't my opinion. Juan Cole is a critic of Israel, a self-proclaimed critic. Oh, I see, perhaps you see him as objective and truth-preaching. Whatever, I do not care. His accusations are baseless, no evidence supports it. No country recognizes the charity being terrorist-sponsor, not the US, not the EU, not Israel. this is also a notability issue. As I said, settlers are allowed to own weapons. It seems Juan considers that terrorism, that is his biased POV and again not substantiated with countries/organizations/etc. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is your opinion that it is 'fringe'. The accusation is notable and can be included. The US, EU and Israel do not decide what is and what is not terrorism. And if you read the article cited, his claim of terrorism is not only the weapons being used. Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No, my claim of fringe is based on the definition of fringe theory. There is no evidence to support his accusation (fringe.) No "notable" "experts" affirm Juan's accusation (fringe.) And no organizations, countries, or groups beyond Washington Report on Middle East Affairs endorse these views (fringe.) The only note-worthy party involved is the FBI, and as I predicted they are investigating the charity for FRAUD, not terrorism. We might as well include the laundry list of CAMERA accusations in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Juan Cole is the notable expert. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Removed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[od]Juan Cole may be notable enough, but with the exception of victims of terrorism (ie Daniel Boim's parents) all of the accusers are governmental agencies, or groups charged with investigating terrorism. Juan Cole is neither. The idea of putting up accusations made by every biased notable in the world is just plain silly. Please try taking this concept to its logical conclusion.... Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So I think the discussion should be refocused away from the Cole source and towards a more general discussion. What is the threshhold for inclusion on the list? Mentioning by:

  • a governmental agency
  • a professor
  • a newspaper
  • a research/analysis group
  • a political group

Obviously once a general conclusion is reached it could be applied to the article. It would also be kept in mine that if governmental agencies are used then accusations of terrorism by Israel, Iran, and Madagascar will all be treated the same (as would be the case for professors, newspapers, etc).--68.251.187.176 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated previously, Juan Cole is alone on his accusation. No evidence other than pure speculation and unsubstantiated "facts" are offered. Also consider the "exposure" is posted on a rather partisan and unreliable source, I think. But I don't think the RS rule applies in this specific case. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
My point was to establish a more general criteria. Should any charity which has been accused of terror by any government agency, professor, etc. be listed here? At this point it doesn't seem to be an issue, but too loose of criteria might lead to a list void of much meaning.--68.251.185.77 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm deleting the entry. No response has been posted yet users continue to edit other articles. An inclusion so blatantly POV and hardly verifiable shouldn't be here. It fails posted criteria as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, the person accused, Jack Abramoff, has yet to receive any accusations of funding terrorist activities. Settlers owning guns or training IS not a recognized terrorist activity by any authoritative government with the exception of the Arab League (I'm assuming). We might as well include Fickelstein accusing the IDF of encouraging "Nazi-like" (inferring terrorism) policies against citizens and Palestinians. He is notable, after all. Inclusions must be verifiable beyond American college professors. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is verifiable that the charity has been accused of having ties to terrorism. What posted criteria does it fail? There is no criteria that the the US, EU or Israel must be the one doing the accusing. Nableezy (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No it's not. Please, how is it verifiable? A single professor accuses a charity of supporting terrorism? Now, say he was...err...the FBI, or CIA, or hell, the United States government, than yeah, it would make sense. The charity is under investigation for fraud, not terrorism. FRAUD. No source cohoborates Cole's mongering. We might as well plug in the trillions of accusations that accuse UNRWA of supporting terrorism. Yeah, let's do that. It has charity-agencies within. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How is it verifiable that the charity has been accused of having ties to terrorism? We have the actual accusation. I dont care what the FBI is doing, why would that matter? The charity has been accused of having ties to terrorism. What dont you understand about that? Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And the UNRWA is not a charity. Charities contribute to it, but it is not a charity. Nableezy (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
UNRWA has legal ties to charities. The case against UNRWA far exceeds the verifiability than this settler "argument." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make an article about organizations with ties to charities that are accused of having ties to terrorism feel free. This isnt that article, this article is about charities accused of having ties to terrorism. I cannot believe you are arguing that this charity has not been accused of having ties to terrorism, we have the accusation right in front of us. Nableezy (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And just so we are clear, none of your 'arguments' refute that the charity has been accused of having ties to terrorism. you are trying to prove that they really dont, or the ties they have dont constitute terrorism, but you miss the point entirely. has this charity been accused of having ties to terrorism? yes or no please. Nableezy (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) The specifics dont need to be discussed all that thoroughly in the RFC, we can do that in a different section. The RFC should be about the general question, what does it take to be included on this list. My opinion is that a notable accusation of having ties to terrorism is enough. Be that from a governmental agency, or a expert in the field. Nableezy (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not enough. According to wikipedia policy, all challenged material must be attributed to a reliable source]. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is not even close to being an RS. So the question is, is Juan Cole's accusation, which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever other than his interpretation and personal definition of terrorism), enough for the inclusion. The answer is simply No. This would never fly in any article, ever. We take serious accusations from notable sources. Cole is notable, but is he notable in accusing Israeli settlers of *gasp* accepting funds to support their "terrorist" operations. No, he is not. Just as Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein, or Jimmy Carter, Cole is not reliable without supporting links. Like, if Cole cited a UN report, or the FBI, or the United States, or hell...Canada, it would be notable for inclusion. But an empty accusation is not enough to sit on wikipedia. I mean, compared to the other charities in the article (which have loads of material to support), it's laughable that we include this one. Truly. I don't know what's going through your head Nab. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
An article by Juan Cole is a RS for the opinion of Juan Cole. This is properly cited. Nableezy (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is, on his blog. But we aren't talking about someone's opinion here, but charges that have been brought presumably with evidence, by United States attorneys for the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Central Intelligence Agency of the US. Other agencies include the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the U.S. 9-11 Commission. Now that may mean little to you, but most Americans have respect for these agencies and to compare them with the personal opinion of a politician such as Juan Cole is more than a little silly, not to mention clearly POV. Perhaps we should include the opinions of Avigdor Lieberman, or Rabbi Meir Kahane, Efraim Karsh or Michael Leeden since they are all experts in the area? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"not to mention clearly point of view" what is that supposed to mean? --neon white talk 16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It is supposed to mean "biased." He is not an investigative unit nor a branch of government, nor a victim of terror, merely a biased academician pushing a theory. It is inappropriate and does not belong in this article. It probably also goes against BLP as argued by NoCal below. We are allowed to revert possibly libelous material beyond 3RR if necessary without fear of sanction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure we can, if they have accused charities of being connected to terrorism include them as well. I am not one for changing policy rationales depending on what 'side' the material is about. Nableezy (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Fuck this is ridiculous. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should. I'll be inserting their POV momentarily, since it's allowed. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can sourced it reliably then it can go in. It might be an idea to read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial to avoid any misunderstnading of the policy in future. --neon white talk 16:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. I don't plan on editing the article further until collaboration beyond Nab and I occurs. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Uusing a very marginal source to claim that a group of identifiable people ((Beiter Illit settlers) are "essentially terrorists" is a serious BLP issue. I'm surprised to see administrators who are not aware of this policy. NoCal100 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a bio article and contains no biographical information about any individual. Please do not misrepresent policy. The article should be left as is until a consensus is decided, meaning no edit waring. --neon white talk 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not misrepresenting policy, you simply do not understand it, which is surprising, given that you are an admin. For starters, WP:BLP applies on every single Wiki page, whether it is a bio article or not. This is spelled out very very clearly here, and is the very first line of WP:BLP (emphasis in the original): "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." Second, the rationale behind the BLP policy includes, among other factors, the desire to protect the project from libel law suites. This, again, is spelled out clearly in WP:BLP: 'Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.' And, since you seem to be ignorant about this aspect, it may be instructive for you to read both WP:LIBEL as well as Libel, paying particular attention to the following (my emphasis): "In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written publications), slander (for spoken word), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.". In short, by insisting on inserting this non-consensus allegation from a marginal source into this article, your are exposing the project to a significant risk. Please desist. NoCal100 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and have no interest in being one. This is not a biography simply put, the only individual mentioned and the only potential libel on here is towards Juan Cole and that is very minimal and as are sourcing his words. As you will see in the policy it only refers to single named persons, not groups. However it is irrelevent as the material is sourced and attributed. --neon white talk 11:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we have an admin remove it? If I do Nab will likely report me for edit warring, as usual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
he will nab you easily.  :)Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is on the BLP page as well: "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. The blocking policy has full information." Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Guilty. I removed the "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" and was promptly threaten with a block for "edit warring" by none other than User:Nableezy. I happened to have reverted his edits only moments before. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The information Nableezy and Neonwhite (and now I) have reverted to re-include is WP:V and in line with WP:NPOV in that it is a significant viewpoint. There is no WP:BLP issue here. There is no biographical information in the entry. No names are even named in the article's main text. Those using BLP as an excuse to revert war should desist. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability and reliability, and not truth or what we like to hear. This is how NPOV is actually achieved. Tiamuttalk 09:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, not removing clearly inappropriate material to avoid a threatened revert war will not fly. The source does not pass verifiability and reliability, and BLP standards must be considered when using specific people. Your argument of "threshold for inclusion" has been stated already. In fact, it's practically a paste and copy of GRuban's edit 6 days ago. Also, "Being in the main text" is 100% irrelevant. Totally. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We don't remove material based on personal views of the info or the source. The source is fine, this had been proven and reiterated by multiple third parties including myself. Far more times than should be necessary in fact and it know seems to be a point to stall the consensus. All users have been asked not to alter the article until there is a consensus for a change. Please respect that. --neon white talk 11:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It is your personal view it should remain. Demanding consensus when there wasn't one to begin with is outside the rulebook. Continuing to demand a "consensus" when it pretty clear the edit is dubious and by far one of the most tragic POV-pushes in the midst of an administrator, is...well...confusing. Your casual reference to the source as being "fine" makes me think you didn't even read the NoCal's post. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue, if NoCal(ton) feels that it is he can take it to the BLP noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Demanding we all sit here and argue pathetically (while spamming my page with warnings), and then finally when you can no longer respond adequately you tell a user to do what we should have done in the first place. Wasted a good hour for AGF. Lesson learned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[od] Is there any evidence that the settlers of Betar Illit are terrorists? The charity may have been accused of "funding money to terrorists," but it has yet to be determined that the settlers are "terrorists." Are they on anyone's terror list? Have any murders been commited? Have they got the equipment to protect their enclave? The IRMEP article claims the equipment was "so that Israeli settlers could intimidate or shoot Palestinian Arabs." Have they shot any Palestinian Arabs or are "settlers" merely "terrorists" by virtue of protecting themselves? If there is no "evidence" that they are terrorists, then the charity cannot be cited for "accusations" of sending money to terrorists, and the settlers of Betar Illit are being maligned by Juan Cole, and anyone else who publishes such material. They need to get an indictment of terrorism, not merely make having biased organisations makke claims. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH Nableezy (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Not when we are talking about living people and accusing them of terrorism. Then it falls under WP:BLP. Wiki's "neutral voice" doesn't accuse a group of being terrorists on the word of a couple of very "iffy" sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikis neutral voice is doing no such thing, we are saying Juan Cole did this. Nableezy (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cole, and also Isikoff, though the latter is quite sotto voce about it. However you can't read his reference to '"security" equipment'[4] (with scare quotes around security) and think he believes that it was intended for self-defence. (Also how exactly does sniping fall under self-defence? This is described, correctly, as "paramilitary" equipment.) Rd232 talk
Isikoff also wrote the equipment was "used by a Jewish settler to mobilize against the Palestinian uprising". This is not describing self-defence. Rd232 talk 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Further: Abramoff's middle man refers to feeling like a tank commander in the Yom Kippur war, and to "finishing" the "dirty rats" (Palestinians, that is). [5] Rd232 talk 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
However, when it comes to accusations of terrorism, we do not make them based on what we, or anyone else thinks they may be used for. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't make accusations of terrorism. We report them though (within the constraints of WP:V and WP:RS). Rd232 talk 15:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The constraints of [WP:V]] and WP:RS place significantly higher bars on the inclusion of potentially libelous material. Is it your opinion that an openly partisan rag such as WRMEA meets those requirements? NoCal100 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's only potentially libellous if it isn't true. Is it untrue that the foundation paid for paramilitary equipment? Is it untrue that Cole linked this with terrorism? Also we're only reporting the claim, not relying on Cole to agree. It would be different it were List of charities associated with terrorism. Finally, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because (a) I try to avoid I/P topics like the plague and (b) I long ago decided to ignore all Wikipedia lists (I didn't realise this was a list before I came here since it doesn't have the word in the title). Bye then, do what you like. Rd232 talk 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So first of all, that false. There are jurisdictions and circumstances where even truth is not a defense against libel charges. More importantly, as you have noted before, we don't deal with truth on WP, which is precisely why we avoid potentially libelous claims if they are not impeccably sourced. I take it you (wisely) do not want to defend the use of openly partisan, marginal sources such as WRMEA for this kind of potentially libelous claims. It would be good if you clarified this on the WP:BLPN notice board. NoCal100 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WP only heeds US jurisdiction; no person or organisation is identified for the terrorism (and what else is sniper equipment in private hands good for? self-defence my a*se - what would you say if a US foundation bought sniper equipment for Hamas?); and the person/org for the funding is disgraced anyway. Also WRMEA's interpretation of undisputed facts (sniper equipment) is significant, especially when the facts are also reported by Newsweek. Anyway, it's a list, include or exclude the item as you wish; I'd include it if I cared about lists, which I don't. Rd232 talk 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is false. Wikipedia can be (and has been) sued for libel in multiple jurisdictions, and the foundation certainly does not "only heeds US jurisdiction". You are welcome to your personal opinions as to what the equipment was or could be used for - but I could care less about your personal opinions. Once again - this is not about the truthfulness of the charges (which you correctly noted earlier is none of WP business, and WP editors are certainly in no position to judge them), but about their potentially libelous nature - and an identifiable gorup of people (Beitar Illit settlers) are being accused of being terrorists - which is actionable libel. The Newsweek article makes no mention of terrorism, so kindly stop bringing it up. The only link to terrorism is made by a very marginal source, which does not not meet the requirements set by WP:BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[od] The Newsweek article does not refer to "terrorism" -- only to "mobilizing against the Intifada." That is not good enough( WP:BLP) to claim "terrorism." Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP is the wrong policy to cite as a biography refers to specific details which form a story about a particular individual's life. Do BLP concerns apply to Hamas and Hezbollah? If you believe this argument, then any group or organization would have BLP apply to it since all groups and organizations are comprised of individuals. Unless specific details are being given to form a narrative about a particular individual, then it isn't biographical in nature.
Anyways, the Newsweek source shouldn't be used to directly support the claim since it does not directly make the claim. It could be used as supporting material or further reading, but I don't think it should be used as the proof for inclusion.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The newsweek source cannot be used at all because it doesn't even hint that the charity is front for terrorism. Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely different issues and are incomparable. If they were to make an accusation, say....accusing the United States of supporting terrorism, it wouldn't be treated as fact. But outside of BLP, let's take a look at verifiability: Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it:. It's a shame this has gone for so long. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The only reason it has gone on so long is the Refusal to 'get the point' by certain editors. There is no more reliable or verifiable source for the opinions of Juan Cole than his own writings published in a reliable publication [6]. Please remember that the only thing this article is doing is reporting in a neutral manner which charitries have been accused of ties to terrorism and in who's opinion. It is not a list Charities with ties to terrorism and it is not claiming any of the opinions presented are true or false. Therefore it complies fully with Wikipedia:NPOV#A simple formulation. --neon white talk 11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you consider Washington Report on Middle East Affairs a reliable source truly demonstrates what is wrong about this dispute. "Please remember that the only thing this article is doing is reporting in a neutral which charities have been accused of ties..." What do you think we've been arguing over? Cole's inclusion violates the whole process of neutrality. It's been couched in to illegally balance the overwhelming amount of evidence against the generally Islamic-related terrorist-funneling "charities." The burden of proof absolves any righteous claim of notability in regards to Cole's frivilous accusation. I know, wikipedia isn't about truth. But it is about verifiability, an argument made by you and Nableezy if I recall. Verifiability law states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.nb 1." Makes sense, but it also adds: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And don't forget: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy).". *Awaits civil POV-pushing response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Also, WRMEA easily qualifies under Questionable sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

About WRMEA: The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust (AET), a non-profit foundation incorporated in Washington, DC. AET's Foreign Policy Committee has included former U.S. ambassadors, government officials, and members of Congress, including the late Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright, and Republican Senator Charles Percy, both former chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In addition to the three founding directors, other initial directors of the American Educational Trust were Prof. John Ruedy, director of studies at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies; former Democratic Member of Congress Thomas Rees of Los Angeles; John Law, Middle East correspondent for U.S. News & World Report for some 20 years before he founded Mideast Markets, a publication of the Chase Manhattan Bank; and Dr. John Duke Anthony, president and chief executive officer of the National Council on U.S. Arab Relations. Subsequent board chairmen have included Dr. John Davies, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and the current chairman, the Reverend Dr. L. Humphrey Walz, former associate executive of the Presbyterian synod of the Northeast.
So your complaint with a political magazine is that it has some political material with it? And you are awaiting civil POV-pushing even though you didn't even know who is going to reply to you?--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok i removed the other 2 citations as they didnt back up the claim that these settlers are terrorists in the first place, leaving us once again with the opinions of Juan Cole, who id like to deal with now. Juan Cole is a history professor, not an expert on terrorism, and as such, is inappropriate here. Even setting that aside, the source is unlikely to be a reliable source as it has no reputation of fact checking or peer review, and, as stated before, no investigative capacity with which to back up the claims made. Further, Nableezy and others are using the 'accused of' portion of the title to ignore all the other rules of wikipedia, not the least of which is wp:verifiability, wp:fringe, wp:libel to name just a few, but these concerns have been raised and ignored before, havent they? Does anyone think wp:mediation will help here, or will we just be subjecting another person to the same ridiculous argument? Bonewah (talk)
Not OK. This page isn't about accusing settlers of being terrorists. This page is about Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Hence the title. The two sources in question http://www.irmep.org/PDF/tec.pdf http://www.fatehfrc.gov.ps/english/viewdoc.asp?aid=1991 clearly accuse the CAF charity of being tied to terrorism. That's the whole point of the page. Please don't remove them. I'd be willing to go to mediation. --GRuban (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
God that is an incredible stretch. Just to be clear, you think that any connection with terrorism is enough to be considered a 'tie' to terrorism? I think by your standard any charity operating in Israel or Palestine would qualify. Bonewah (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude. I didn't write the sources in question, but it's pretty clear that tying the CAF to terrorism is their main point. I don't necessarily agree with what they have to say, but I will strongly Voltaire their right to say it.--GRuban (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Anyway, it does look like we're not getting anywhere fast, which is why I'd agree to mediation. For that, looks like we would need agreement from all or most of the following (list with talk page links, alphabetical order):

Did I miss anyone or mischaracterize anyone? --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. I won't oppose going to mediation, but to be honest, this article is not a top priority for me nd I may be busy in the weeks to come. However, I'll abide by any outcome and pitch in to discussion whenever I can if appropriate. Tiamuttalk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would not oppose mediation either.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hardly valid IPer. Just because a dispute is spit between dogmas does mean it is superior. I'm all for dispute resolution. Admin is far too involved and many of the users in this dispute have taken nearly identical sides in other Israel/Palestinian arguments. I think at this point you guys just wearing every down. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree to the mediation but I actually will not be participating as I do not have the time.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I broke this off into a separate section for easier navigation and editing. I don't see any objections so far; let me drop a note on the talk page of everyone who hasn't explicitly agreed yet. --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to mediation, and of course, to abide by its outcome. NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Once I realised the page was infested with I/P mentalists I quickly washed my hands and moved away from the page. History teaches us whatever the outcome of meditation, the batshit crazies on both sides will carry on regardless. I have no interest in becoming involved in a) I/P issues or b) this issue. Please don't respond to this on my talkpage as I'm not interested and I am not watching this page so I will not make any further comment on this matter. Just letting people know so they can strike my name. thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to mediation, and of course, to abide by its outcome. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I will agree to whatever decision the mediation committe makes. annoynmous 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I had actually withdrawn (see above) though I got drawn into making further comments. However I'm completely with Cameron Scott - I can't express strongly enough that I have no further interest in the outcome of this issue. Ergo, mediation will continue without me. Rd232 talk 23:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed and will abide by by its outcome though I cannot guarantee participation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Any mediation would have to not only deal with a resolution to this dispute but the 'agenda driven' edit warring and whether such editors can ever editor in a neutral manner. --neon white talk 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well neon, if you accept the mediation, you can bring it up with the mediator. Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • i probably wouldnt participate, dont see much of a point arguing with wikifan. Nableezy (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Clarify, please - you wouldn't participate in the mediation, or you wouldn't accept its results? If you won't participate, but will agree to abide by the outcome, that's all that's required - we've got a couple of people who have argued for each side who are willing to participate actively, and we can probably get a mediation. If you won't agree to abide by the outcome, we won't be able to get a mediation. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
      • sure, will abide Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! I think that's everyone, even Tiamut, toward the top there. Bonewah, as the person who brought it up, want to make the form at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? We can probably put a link to this article section to show that everyone has agreed, either to participate, or abide, or stay away from this article, rather than forcing them all to sign there again. Once we succeed at this mediation, we can try for actual peace between the Israelis and Palestinians next. :-)--GRuban (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes even me. Thanks GRuban for your efforts in organizing the mediation. Tiamuttalk 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Close, we are still waiting on neon white. Ill be happy to fill out the form when he agrees, and thanks to everyone for working towards a solution here, im confident that we can all work this issue out to everyones satisfaction. Bonewah (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Pinged Neon White. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Pinged again. --GRuban (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Here is what Neon White has to say: [7] It's neither a formal agreement, but at least it isn't a formal disagreement. I wonder if Neon White is a lawyer in his day job? :-) I think it's the best we're going to get. Let's see if a mediator will accept it, and we can get this settled. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I dont think his non-acceptance will mess things up. Unless anyone objects, id like to wait till monday to start, if nothing else, cooling off never hurts. Im in no real hurry. As for him being a lawyer, lets wp:agf and presume hes human. ;-) ;-) Just kidding. Bonewah (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
He might be right, though, about informal mediation, we might have to do it as a prerequisite to formal mediation. Formal or informal doesnt really matter to me. Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Informal mediation is required as a step. I'm sceptical as to whether either informal or formal mediation will make any difference. Mediation isn't a judgement, it requires that parties enter with a willing to compromise and a wish to acheive a good result not in hope that they can get their own way. Considering the discussion here i don't believe that is likely. However it will probably likely end of there and arbitration eventually. Before that though i would like to propose a compromise.
    • Firstly define the criteria of the list as "charities accused of ties to terrorism by notable experts, groups and government organisations". or something to that effect.
    • Divide the list into seperate categories according to who the accuser is. So all the government ones would be together etc etc. This way it well be very clear who the accusers are and their role and therefore allow the reader to decide the credibility of each category.

--neon white talk 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If Juan Cole were actually a notable expert on terrorism, rather than history, none of this would be an issue in the first place. I have no problem with renaming the article to reflect the fact that the accusations are from governments, I have no problem adding additional information about the strength (or lack thereof) of each claim, and i have no problem reorganizing the list. However, I very much do have a problem with keeping the opinions of non-notable non-expert polemicists from an unreliable source, because if we choose to ignore the requirements that accusers actually know what they are talking about, then the list will soon be filled with every kind of bloviating idiot under the sun accusing every charity there is of terrorism.
as for the rest, im going to put us in for informal mediation, and if that fails, we will have at least tried. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, ive added an informal mediation tag to the top of the previous section. Please feel free to take a look at the case page created, and add any information you feel is necessary. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The scope of the article is not merely goverments, there is no logical argument for such. Juan Cole has been established as a notable commentator and scholar on middle eastern studies (see Juan Cole#Commentator on Middle Eastern affairs). It is utterly irrelevant what we believe about the sources or our personal opinions. Ad hominem attacks on the source is not something with wikipedia is interested in. --neon white talk 20:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is utterly irrelevant what we believe about the sources? Yea I got that from your lack of concern that this isnt published in a peer reviewed source, or any sort of reliable source, really. But weve been through this, havent we? Why should you care about reliable sources when you didnt care that Juan Cole is the only one making this accusation? And why would that concern you when you take a single line ("essentially terrorist") and turn it into an accusation of ties to terrorism? But weve been through that, too, havent we? So why dont we just save it for the moderator? Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The reliability has been established over and over again. You're not even arguing an valid policy points anymore just trying to stall the consensus by refusals. If you have no valid reason why the article should not contain this other than personal bias it needs to be dropped. --neon white talk 14:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to List of charities accused of ties to terrorism[edit]

At the very least this should be a "List of..." article as it is, well, a list. See WP:LISTNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse, not priority however. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the new name is more appropriate given the format of the page.I don't think anyone would object to such a move. Tiamuttalk 12:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

done Nableezy (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy. You are so proactive! ;) Tiamuttalk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag-teaming, dogmatic approach to editing, see history[edit]

Beyond disturbing. I highly recommend dispute resolution before this gets out of hand and people get blocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black[edit]

Just agree to mediation.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade. This whole dispute wreaks of POV-pushing. It is more than obvious the source shouldn't stay. It is not an RS, and nothing outside of it corroborates Cole's views. Even it did, it still shouldn't remain. Those who want it to stay are self-proclaimed fencers and those who don't are just the same. If you think incivility is an issue write me up. And BTW, stop the with the policy shopping. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"This whole dispute wreaks of POV-pushing.", "stop the with the policy shopping" - Thanks for owning up to those things. "Even it did, it still shouldn't remain" - By stating that you want something to be removed regardless of whether it can be sourced or not reveals the true nature of your objection. It's personal and political and not based on policy at all. I think this page has sufficient evidence now that you are not acting in good faith. --neon white talk 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that my disagreement over the inclusion of Juan Cole is inspired by a "person" and "political" objection rather than a policy dispute? Yeah, including an unreliable source to quote a non-notable (context-wise) person who accuses charity of supporting terrorism because it may or may not have received funds for "sniper equipment" and "lessons." Even though the FBI and the United States government (which BTW, are reliable sources in this context) investigated the charity, and made no reference whatsoever that the organization is a vehicle for terrorism in any way, shape, or form, some users still consider it reliable. If users continually demand we use Juan Cole regardless of whether or not it violates policy or logic, might suggest the dispute may be a POV-issue rather than a concern for the article itself. And you accusing me of practically the same thing, well. I couldn't care less. Aren't you an admin? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem in general is that you continue to argue these ridiculous points long after they have been dismissed and is reasonable. Juan Cole is without question notable (see his article), we can cite any number of sources that he is considered a leading expert, notable commentator, etc, regardless. His paper was published and his comments noted by reliable publications such as Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and is available on HighBeam Research and in libraries throughout the academic world. This means it is peer reviewed, the most important criteria for verifiability. the criteria for inclusion in this list doesn't prohibit accusations by any notable individual. If you want to discuss the list's criteria do so but your negative personal opinions of certain experts doesn't make them unimportant. There is no policy violation and no valid policy points have been made. --neon white talk 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MEDCAB Mediator[edit]

Hello. I am an experienced MEDCAB and 3O mediator. A request has been made for mediation and I am willing to take the case. I understand that everyone agrees to mediation (thank you GRuban for pointing this out). As I understand it the debate so far stems around the inclusion of Capital Athletic Foundation (indeed any charity) within the list and what defines a reliable source. Also included within this is some dispute over the use of the word accused.

Could the parties to the dispute outline their positions (in separate sections below) with sources cited, and further give a brief outline of what they feel is meant by Wikipedia of a "reliable source"? I know that this much, if not all, of this information can be gleaned from the prior discussions but it is often a helpful exercise to reiterate it in a single section.

Can I further ask that no one edit or comment on anyone elses comments in this exercise and that all parties remember to employ civility and the assumption of others' good faith?

Thank you fr33kman -s- 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

===Comments by {{user|username}}=== example section

Comments by GRuban (talk · contribs)[edit]

I heard about this article from a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias back in April 2006, specifically here, and then just above on this talk page, here. At the time, the objection by multiple people was that the article was biased, due to being mainly a repetition of the US government's unproven claims against Islamic charities. Xed (talk · contribs) brought up two references of examples that weren't in the article, one of an accusation later disproven, and the second of this accusation. I said "Then fix it", and then as that didn't happen, did it myself. That didn't satisfy Xed, but I gather he was more upset by the US Government's claims being in the article, than by the lack of balance. Personally I'm a strong believer in fixing rather than deleting. In the end, no one actively complained about the entries for 3 years.

What is meant on Wikipedia by a "reliable source"? The Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline defines them so: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The "subject at hand", modern terrorism, is highly controversial and polarized, and no one source is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative" in determining who is or is not a terrorist. For example, the United States Government certainly isn't. Our article on Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Criticism says In June 2006, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter stated that the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay".[157] Our article Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal#Murat_Kurnaz.2C_an_example quotes an expert on military justice saying "It suggests the procedure is a sham". And so forth and so on.

But we clearly need some article here, since these accusations that charities support terrorism are clearly highly Wikipedia:Notable - people write about them, a lot, and they have major effects on the world. So what do we do when we have to write about issues that aren't settled? We give all sides, and say who says what. This particular accusation is made by Juan Cole, who our article says is considered an expert on the Middle East, and supported by http://www.fatehfrc.gov.ps/english/viewdoc.asp?aid=1991 an article by Fatah, which is part of the government of the Palestinian territories, and http://www.irmep.org/PDF/tec.pdf the Institute for Research on Middle East Policy, more... The argument made for the inclusion of claims by agencies of the US Government, above, by User:Tundrabuggy, are "most Americans have respect for these agencies". Well, most Palestinians have respect for at least one of these agencies. Unless we want our article to take a side in an argument that is more political than factual, we need to give all notable, Wikipedia:Verifiable sides, and say who supports what. WP:NPOV is a meta:Foundation issue. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by bonewah (talk · contribs)[edit]

Id like to deal with reliable sources first, as I think it is the most important aspect of this dispute. The reliable sources overview opens with this line "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I think this is the critical element of any reliable source, that one could reasonably expect that the source gets it right. That, ideally, whomever you cite has done due diligence and isnt just making stuff up. Note, this does not guarantee that the reliable source is correct, only that we, as editors have done our part. If, for example, the New York Times reports something, its reasonable to assume that they fact checked themselves, and as such, even if they turn out to be wrong, no reasonable person would say "wikipedia is ridiculous for having believed the NYT in the first place"

This cuts to the first element of my concerns here, we are citing an editorial, not a news source. That is to say that this is one man's opinion. There is no expectation that someone's opinion is rigorously fact checked. As a corollary to that, Cole himself only says "essentially terrorist" further emphasizing the opinion aspect of this source.

Adding further to the reliable sourcing problems here is the fact that one on else is making the claims that Cole is making. The other sources cited don't explicitly say "this charity is associated with terrorism"

Even further problems exist when we consider that Juan Cole is a history professor, not a terrorism expert. These are most emphatically not the same thing.

Additionally, no one else is making this claim except Juan Cole. Verifiability calls on us to have multiple sources, not a singular individual.

Some editors here have mentioned concerns about countering bias in wikipedia, i get that, and think that is a good objective. However, the way to do that is to provide facts showing why those claims are wrong or spurious, not by adding even more spurious claims on 'the other side' if you will. Just consider how objectionable it would be if i tried to include an editorial from some right-wing pundit claiming that all Palestinians are terrorists, or some such thing. I think that editors here would object that opinion is not equal to fact, and that one editorial does not make for a legitimate accusation. Sorry for the long delay on finishing my views on this matter, I hope that the time served to cool people off on this matter. Bonewah (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nableezy (talk · contribs)[edit]

This is simple to me, a verifiable accusation (note that the of the existence accusation itself needs to be verifiable, not the contents of the accusation) that a charity is connected to terrorism fits this article. The arguments about the sourcing seem irrelevant to me as we explicitly attribute every accusation, there is no more reliable source for what Juan Cole says than Juan Cole himself. Nableezy (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism[edit]

Hello, this is to inform all that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent dispute on this article. My name is Vicenarian (talk · contribs) and I have volunteered to be your mediator. As you may know, the MEDCAB process is informal and strictly voluntary; we have neither the power to compel participation or impose any resolution. Our goal is to act as a neutral third-party in helping to reach a compromise acceptable to all. To begin the process, I would ask that all interested parties to please visit the case page and signify their acceptance of mediation, and me as mediator, by signing below my name. Thank you, Vicenarian (T · C) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. What happened to the last guy? --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, but I'm happy to help. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RSN discussion[edit]

After discussion at the Mediation, we brought the disagreement about the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article by Juan Cole used for the Capital Athletic Foundation entry, to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Juan Cole and List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. --GRuban (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And the opinion was that Juan Cole is a reliable source for this accusation. See this archive. It was recently removed and I am putting it back. Please do not remove again. CarolMooreDC 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That is plainly false. Of the 4 editors who opined at RSN, 2 of them rejected the use of Juan Cole as a RS in this context. Further, one of the editors who endorsed Cole as a RS had first commented here, and was merely following the dispute to that forum, and was therefor not a uninvolved party. Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

United Nations: Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida[edit]

Here is a big list whose entries might be valid for inclusion in the article: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolidatedlist.htm#alqaedaent Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jack Abramoff's Capital Athletic Foundation[edit]

Re: removal of Jack Abramoff's Capital Athletic Foundation - Juan Cole - Diverted American Indian tribe money to pay for paramilitary gear for Israeli far-right " Jabotinskyites" accused of terrorizing Palestinians near their Beitar Illit West Bank settlement. REF: Juan Cole,Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism, Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006 with the not very serious edit summary Check out the "accusers" column and repeat the old Sesame Street refrain 'one of these things is not like other'....

  • Now that WP:RSN has found Cole to be a reliable source for the accusation of terrorism - and I've found a few more since that one - I see a new more dubious tact is being tried.
  • Note that this private accusation is is similar to the originally private accusation against Interpal by Sunday Telegraph, picked up by the United States Treasury Department/Board of Deputies of British Jews/Sunday Express, all of which were retracted, including under threat of lawsuits. I don't see any lawsuits against Juan Cole demanding retraction.
  • It's common sense that included under the definition of Terrorism is illegally occupying other people's lands and trying to kill protesting original landowners and their supporters using weapons clearly obtained for aggressive purposes. According to this Newsweek ref (and I've seen others): Abramoff's misdirected money was used by the occupiers to purchase camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager, other "security" equipment. At least one private group organizing "free lance patrols" (read vigilante groups) is alleged to have gotten $773 worth of paramilitary gear--including sniper shooting mats and "hydration tactical tubes". Adding a few more details will make that clear enough, plus their are newer refs to investigate.

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but others can feel free to if I don't get back soon enough. CarolMooreDC 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All the accusers in this article are governmental agencies moreover the source is WRMEA not suitable for such WP:RED FLAG claims.--Shrike (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So you also want to remove Sunday Telegraph/Board of Deputies of British Jews/Sunday Express and just mention Dept Treasury?? Or downgrade info about private originator(s) to part of footnote?CarolMooreDC 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed.--Shrike (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Per above, RSN did NOT find Juan Cole to be a RS in this context. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The important point is that added later: non-governmental private sources are not being used here; the exception being the retracted accusations about Interpal which the person who removed Capital Athletic Foundation left in for whatever reason and I didn't necessarily object to leaving in. CarolMooreDC 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I dont understand what you mean by private sources. Bonewah (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Clarified: non-governmental. CarolMooreDC 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of charities accused of ties to terrorism. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)