Misplaced Pages

While I see your point, I don't think most readers will assume that Misplaced Pages is necessarily the subject of any unattributed verb. For example, if we have a page titled "People named George", surely readers will not assume Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is the one doing the accusing. By using the word "referred" Misplaced Pages 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 <freakofnur_xture|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?

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?

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?

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)

The role of our personal opinions on the strength of the allegations?

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

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)

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.

• The Terrorism Case that Wasn't: One Year On, 'Help the Needy' Case Still Shrouded in Mystery, Innuendo
• Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards?

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?

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 | ]}} -- Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Where should the accusers be named

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

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

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. No mention of false allegations . - 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

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?

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 Misplaced Pages: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?

Template:RFCpol

"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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.