Talk:List of charities accused of ties to terrorism

message: Charities accused of ties to terrorism → Charities 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Removing NPOV title tag

message: ::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)
thread_title: Proven in a court of law?

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-judicial proof?

message: ::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     --  Geo Swan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should we detail the accusations?

message: ::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)
thread_title: Where should the accusers be named

message: 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)
thread_title: The charities removed from the list two months ago

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope and title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have a better idea, lets not include either. Bonewah (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Newsweeks Michael Iskikoff also made the accusation, so you can't claim it's just Cole. annoynmous 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  BLP or libel or both. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: @ 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I haven't edited the article i restored your removal. --neon white talk 11:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is doing the accusing? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse, not priority however. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Thanks Nableezy. You are so proactive! ;) Tiamuttalk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[List of charities accused of ties to terrorism]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Tag-teaming, dogmatic approach to editing, see history 

message: Just agree to mediation.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black|Pot calling the kettle black]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  MEDCAB Mediator 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|GRuban}}

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|bonewah}}

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments by {{user|Nableezy}}

message: Hello, this is to inform all that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent dispute on this article. My name is  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)
replies: text: Done. What happened to the last guy? --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I'm happy to help. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RSN discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United Nations: Entities and other groups and undertakings associated with Al-Qaida 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removed.--Shrike (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per above, RSN did NOT find Juan Cole to be a RS in this context. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I dont understand what you mean by private sources. Bonewah (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified:  non-governmental. CarolMooreDC 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of  [[Jack Abramoff]]'s [[Capital Athletic Foundation]]

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231200342/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/08/spain.alqaeda/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/08/spain.alqaeda/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427080215/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130115191307/http://action.web.ca/home/sap/media.shtml?x=57414&AA_EX_Session=974c8029818b7ab8c633519a97ae002f to http://action.web.ca/home/sap/media.shtml?x=57414&AA_EX_Session=974c8029818b7ab8c633519a97ae002f
*Added archive https://archive.is/20061114091539/http://www.wildmanharrold.com/about/press/teendeath120704.htm to http://www.wildmanharrold.com/about/press/teendeath120704.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it might be helpful if i start a section here to discuss the inclusion of the NRA on this list.  I reverted this change for a number of reasons.  The biggest of which is that the 'accusations' against the NRA dont fit the description of this list at all. We say in the lede that "A number of charities have been accused or convicted in court of using their revenues to fund terrorism or revolutionary movements, rather than for the humanitarian purposes for which contributions were ostensibly collected"  The NRA fits none of these classifications.  It was not accused or convicted by any court of law enforcement body, and it is not a charity.  The accusation in this case is merely politically motivated showmanship, and, as such not be included here.  Bonewah (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would note that on some level *all* terrorist designations are politically motivated showmanship. The NRA is a charity by the non-American version of charity which covers all non-profits. I would also note that properly sourced contentious information that doesnt violate WP:BLP is to remain up while discussion happens, removal is only appropriate for unsourced contentious information. Please abide by wikipedia policy while attempting to come to a consensus. I would also note that your use of hyper political language, “politically motivated showmanship" "RM political BS” etc, suggests that you are not an impartial editor when it comes to this subject. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:BRD you have Boldly added the material, it was reverted, now we discuss it before re-adding it. Removal is appropriate. You have not addressed my concerns here.  The lede of this article makes it clear that it details actual charities that are accused by courts or other law enforcement bodies.  These accusations fit none of those criteria.  we dont include idle accusations or else we could include any editorial or inflamitory speech which chose to associate associate some group with terrorism. This is not an article of detailing rhetoric, but rather a list of real, substantive accusations that carry the weight of law enforcement or military action.  Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that BRD is not policy as you are claiming... I note that none of the designating bodies currently on the page is a court and a minority are law enforcement agencies. I note that the NRA is an *actual charity* for the purposes of English Wikipedia. I note that you appear to be engaged in a pattern of disruptive edits across wikipedia pages. I note that the Wasington Post article is neither editorial nor inflamitory speech. I note that your argument is entirely opinion not policy based. I note that you are cherrypicking from the lede, all that needs to be met is “This is a list of charities accused of ties to terrorism.” which would describe the SF designation well. I note that you are incorrect on every single point you have attempted to make. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, nearly every single entry the accuser is a law enforcement body.  The lede itself makes clear that these accusations are ones that have the backing of actual law enforcement or government intelligence, not the mere declarations of a city council.  Again, if mere 'accusation' was all that was needed, we could include any charity that was accused by anyone of ties to terrorism.  This is plainly not what Wikipedia should be doing.  We are not a scrivener of idle rhetoric.  Bonewah (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

text: In fact, UNRWA has been accused of some of supporting terrorism. Should we then list the United Nations on this list too?VR talk 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Im Ok with that but we have to decide what convicting (or accusing) bodies we recognize and which ones we dont.  Also, i think a name change for the article might be in order. Bonewah (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Court of law? Although I suppose there is the issue of a charity being convicted in one jurisdiction but not in another. Also ping .VR talk 01:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRA