![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Reading all the projects at the IHH site no just the title [1] It is clear that the IHH Is Islamic org mainly helping Muslims and the Muslims religion practice
Crap. This has become a mess again. If it is still a mess tomorrow I'll try to straighten out the grammar and usage and get the citations linked to the right things again. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
I realize you are fighting against repeated opinion attacks and revisions but somebody really needs to go over the page and do simple proofreading and copy editing. (Update -- thanks, it looks much better today.) You've got typos, words missing, etc. There's also currently no reference or link to the Gaza Flotilla or the Wikipedia Gaza flotilla raid entry, which seems lame given the "current event" warnings. Demonstrate the commitment to quality and clarity over politics by spending some fraction of the time devoted to swapping and re-swapping pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian political arguments to cleaning up the writing for clarity and correctness. People come here looking for information; whatever the controversy it would be nice if the entry were coherent. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an indirect reference to the Gaza Flotilla incident ("several members went on the boat"), plus a "previously arrested" phrase which could mean previous to the 1997 raid (which is described redundantly in succeeding sentences) or previous to the Gaza Flotilla. Winter Maiden ( talk) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think there needs to be a brief statement such as, "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction [ [1]]." PS: Hey, I think I added this. I thought the page was locked, but I guess not?
>>Message from YalePhDHistory<< (I realize this may be an admin board so if you have a better place to put this message so that people can read it, please do move it there.) Listen up folks, I am posting excerpts that are thoroughly and properly cited and are a compilation of reports from the FBI, CIA, French, Turkish, and Danish Intelligence Services. Do not delete my post unless you have some issue with reality or have minor appearance issues. This is neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, these are the facts regarding the activities and connections of the IHH as they are seen by global intelligence services. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YalePhDHistory (
talk •
contribs)
15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost all the references under the heading "controversy" are Israeli sources. The allegations are brought by the Israeli side and they are then proven by Israeli references. No dictionary can be built on such tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.59.102 ( talk) 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Some Israeli people trying to vandalise this article, and add false claims about Humanitarian Aid Foundation. Last paragraph where they claim it has links to al-kaida is one of those edits.
All the info about IHH's alleged terrorist links are properly sourced, with references to established daily papers, quotes from the Carnegie Endowment, etc. Someone is censoring that information.
Please stop the nonsense, or you will get banned by the admins. 85.103.12.75 ( talk)
1. "by conservative American analyst Evan Kohlman"
Is there any evidence he is conservative? His wiki page does not so describe him. This seems like an attempt to dismiss his reportage based his background, a background that is not even sourced.
2. Apparently, Kohlman's theory about IHH has not gained traction, since IHH remains a legal organization everywhere except Israel, which banned it in 2008.
This seems to be original research. The states that have not banned IHH are political entities with their own agendas, not academic organizations designed to confirm or dispute research. In particular they all want to maintain good relations with the current govt of Turkey, which seems to protect the IHH.
3. The entire article seems to have POV issues, in tone and layout.
4. I have added further info on Izzat Shahin's activities on the West Bank to add contect to the deportation.
Ricardianman ( talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(talya) hey i would just like to add some links that proves the connections to the Hamas and other terroists: http://www.ie.edu/IE/site/php/en/school_communication_detail.php?id_new=111 http://www.velfecr.com/gazze-de-goz-yasartan-buyuk-bulusma-video-foto-1408-haberi.html http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4168 http://www.diis.dk/sw241.asp http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/14/oh-jesus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.230.106 ( talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree this article has been hijacked by pro-Israel groups.--
shirbil (
talk)
04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Realizing that this page has come under "semi-protection" for it's possible vandalism, and why, politics again. It is worth noting, and it should be added that in a de-classified report titled "“International Islamic NGOs and Links to Terrorism” from the CIA, the IHH is listed as having "links with extremist groups in Iran and Algeria and was either active or facilitating activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia." Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Some more background, and an editor who is more "Wiki-savvy" than I would surely be able to present this information correctly, is this http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vr1qsPY-xJ8J:www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/312.pdf+Is+%C4%B0nsani+Yard%C4%B1m+Vakf%C4%B1+listed+by+the+US+as+a+terrorist+organization%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgovB4G22Iw7qoltk25qw7z8KFJhw5XXxxU22cstSwFFJPNdbB4cYnpD60HqN1RmdCYVeO5G3bxmiLlk77fGtZP5oqCfMViLrLkPdaOMoWYMW1JOkR02dDdxL880qVfw1w3HdaQ&sig=AHIEtbTt8Rro9Y-fCnl6WrzYWMJOXwamXw PDF of court documents related to IHH, et al. in a federal money laundering case for HAMAS. Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 08:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The present title is a curious hybrid of English and Turkish spelling. Please note that the Turkish alphabet has two distinct letters, dotted and dotless I. In English texts these are often mapped to letters in the Basic Latin alphabet, as follows: the dotless minuscule ı is mapped to dotted i, while the dotted majuscule İ is mapped to dotless I. Here we see the majuscule being mapped while the minuscules remain unmapped, which is rather inconsistent.
Some facts about the name (source: www.ihh.org.tr):
# ^ Modified 12:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) by adding a second ve; see explanation on the article's page. -- Lambiam
The problems with the current version of the page name are:
I think together they have enough weight to make clear that the page should be moved to a better title. (We should of course retain all remotely plausible variants as redirects.)
According to the rule "most common in English", IHH would be the most appropriate name for the article; however, IHH has already been taken and is in the long run probably the better candidate for occupying this page. Next, the most plausible candidates for the name are:
In order of preference, I'd say 1.2, then 2, then 1.1, with 3 as least preferable. What do others think? -- Lambiam 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It turns out that there is also a German humanitarian relief organization named Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation (which means "International Humanitarian Relief Organization"), based in Frankfurt am Main. As could be expected, this organization generally goes by the initialism IHH. Although having a similar (but not identical) logo and also being run by Turks with an emphasis on projects in Muslim countries, this organization states on its website that it should not be confused with the Turkish IHH (the subject of this article) and that it was not involved in the "Free Gaza" campaign. -- Lambiam
Follow-up: Several sources (also "reliable" ones) mention Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation and the Internationale Humanitaire Hulporganisatie as, respectively, the German and Dutch branches of the Turkish İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı. However, the other day the head of İHH was on Turkish television, and when interviewed about the relationship he stated that these organizations had been founded and adopted the initials IHH during the Bosnian war in order to profit from the success of the Turkish organization, and that İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı had begun instituting legal proceeding against them – but that progress was slow due to the difficulties of a border-crossing legal process. -- Lambiam 07:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit is made up of copying, word for word, copyrighted material.The text (including the citations) is lifted from the DIIS study ( here). nableezy - 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Text in the Alleged terrorist ties section is also lifted from the WINEP paper. nableezy - 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it rather appalling how all kinds of claims of often dubious provenance – the kind of disinformation the intelligence community is adept in seeding and spreading around – are copied uncritically to the article, without an examination of the stated sources. If A claims that B states that X, we should not simply report that in the form: "B states that X", copying the reference (if any) given by A. We should only report this in such a way if we have examined that reference ourselves, and found that the claim is accurate. Otherwise (if the cited source is not available, so we cannot examine it), if we report this claim at all, we should cite it from A – but only if A is a truly reliable source, which many think tanks, political analysts, and other pundits, are not. -- Lambiam 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with you Lambiam. The whole section on Islamist affiliations is written in a way reminiscent of extremist leaflets. All the sources cited are simple hearsay, specific persons' opinions, or, at best, conclusions of think-tanks and institutes.
I strongly believe that we should just keep the allegations of the "Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", although even that could be better-cited, and maybe the bit from the Reuters factbox about Izzet Sahin. The rest, IMO, should definitely go.
Awaiting your opinions. Steloukos ( talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been checking in on this page throughout the past week, and making formatting, usage, and grammar corrections to try to keep it readable, but have tried to leave decisions about content to those with more information or more Wikipedia experience, or both. What I want from the article is for people who wonder what IHH is to be able to find out its public identity, its role in the flotilla incident, the fact that a controversy exists over its possible ties to Islamic extremism, and the major players making claims on each side of the controversy, with appropriate pointers if people wish to pursue further. I have to say that today's version (Friday, June 4, 1:45 pm ET) seems really well done. I did change: Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH had ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH was aiding terrorism." to the present-tense "Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH has ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH aids terrorism." mainly for grammar/usage reasons -- ties in the past are still ties, and organizations are still claiming IHH's actions this week mostly help terrorists. Thus, present tense is appropriate. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P
Is the source used in paragraph acceptable? The document ( testimony16.pdf) is a court transcript, and as such I think can't be used on its own becuase it's a primary source: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Misarxist ( talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't require any analysis - it's just what the Judge said. Originally I posted what he said verbatim, which has now been edited. Why can't we use a court transcript on it's own? It's just like a transcript of a radio interview, can't we use that? It's more genuine than someone paraphrasing what he said in a secondary source Calanen ( talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference (currently note 3) "Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, The". NGO Branch, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=showProfileDetails&tab=1&profileCode=2525. Retrieved 2010-06-02. provides a link to IHH's profile page, but it is a search result and the link isn't stable--when your search times out, it reverts to the search page. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on such a link. I added a direct link to the public document listing NGOs, which also supports the assertion (currently note 4), so this one could come out. 74.104.211.63 ( talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P
I think "allegations of terrorist affiliations" is a better title than the "alleged islamist and jihadist affiliations" the second one seems to carry racist implications. It also appears take Israeli accusations as facts. ManasShaikh ( talk) 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference in the opening section to the flotilla victims being "killed at close range and some in the back" because a) you can't be "killed at close range," or rather, you are always killed at close range, death being among the most intimately personal of experiences. What you can or can not be at close range is "shot". Likewise, you can't be killed in the back. You can be shot in the back, stabbed in the back, etc. AND b) but either way, it's not relevant to a description/definition of IHH. It may be relevant to the entry on the Gaza flotilla raid, which this article handily links to; if so, it should be added there, and good luck to it. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
This link is used as a reference to the lack of IHH being on the US State Departments list of 45 terrorist organizations.
This link does not provide a reference for that, it instead goes directly to a follow-up article regarding the boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie provided by the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). This being a neutral source can certainly be questioned. Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Dug up real references at US State Department -- DOS Terrorist Organizations list and transcript of the June 2 press briefing in which PJ Crowley actually says the words "can't be validated". VSO'P 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed a parenthetical about an offer to land at Ashdod because it wasn't supported by the references attached to it (which applied to the first half of the original sentence but not to the Ashdod offer) and because I could not determine whether this was supposed to refer to the standing offer from the IDF to allow aid ships to land at Ashdod or the demand from the IDF group intercepting the flotilla that the ships go to Ashdod. The whole thing is laid out pretty well in the Gaza flotilla raid page. If it's going to be reiterated here it needs more than a single passive-voice clause to make it understandable for readers. VSO'P. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. Seems reasonable and there are no objections. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) → IHH (Turkish NGO) — Above I've explained the problems with the current title and why it should be moved to a better title. After ample consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the best disambiguating phrase is "Turkish NGO"; it is impeccably NPOV, and makes immediately clear which meaning of "IHH" this is. -- Lambiam 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is not very stable, as allegations are being added and removed without apparent effort to reach a consensus.
It should be clear that a PR war is going on in the media, in which one side wants the world to think that Israel, in an act of piracy on the free seas, murdered a bunch of innocent peace-loving people with no other aim than to bring humanitarian aid to victims of cruel oppression, while another side is promoting the viewpoint that a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency planned and provoked a violent confrontation with a group of unsuspecting commandos attempting a nonviolent takeover of a vessel about to break a legal blockade. Now I don't know which is closer to the truth, as all information I have access to is from this PR battlefield. What I do notice, though, is that almost all published allegations directed against IHH simply parrot earlier allegations, sometimes with attribution to a source, but often without.
Wikipedia must not serve as a theatre of war, and we as editors must avoid being used as pawns. On the other hand, the allegations do exist, they are (obviously) notable, and should be reported on – and such reports should not be summarily removed if they are in conformance with our core policies. But please do not use tertiary sources if there is a secondary source that can be cited. For example, there is an allegation that IHH is a member of the Union of Good, which is reportedly the reason why the organization was banned by Israel. Now I don't know whether this is so or not, but I haven't been able to find any other originating source than the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), for example here. (See also this copy of a report by the ITIC – reported by Google search as being on the ITIC website, but that has now become a dead link – which manages to confuse the German IHH with the Turkish IHH.) This Union-of-Good allegation has been repeated all over the Western media, but all appears to be based, ultimately, on the Israeli assertion. Almost all other allegations can be traced back to Bruguière, mostly by way of Kohlmann. If twenty sources parrot Kohlmann, it does not become twenty times as true.
Also please avoid using opinion pieces, unless the source is notable, such as an editorial in a major newspaper, but then it should be clearly identified as such.
Should we have a spinout article with a title such as "Allegations of terrorist affiliations of IHH (Turkish NGO)" (while leaving an adequate summary here)? It could perhaps help to make the present article more stable, and also allow in-depth treatment that would be excessive in this article. -- Lambiam 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It is obvious that edits are being added to this article to support the (notable) allegations of IHH links with terrorism, but without mentioning the counter-arguments that it is active in many countries, and has been investigated in many countries, without it having been restricted outside of Israel. This is WP:UNDUE, bordering on WP:FRINGE. I have added an {{ npov}} tag to the article, and watchlisted it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there remaining unresolved NPOV issues that are of sufficient importance to justify keeping the {{
POV-section}}
box on the section
Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations? Unless serious issues are identified, I'll remove it in a couple of days. --
Lambiam
20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:LABEL say "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious. If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources, use a more specific term such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage taker, or kidnapper. If none of these apply, use a more neutral, general word such as insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, or militant.
The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy, and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." -- Brendumb ( talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel named terrorist living in America who "tried to bring electronic components into the Gaza Strip, which Israel has forbidden". Israelis pressing the Americans to quit harboring terrorists? Or is America terrorist for supporting terrorist who support terrorist?-- 71.156.84.246 ( talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from above,
In the 2001 book "Manipulations Africaines", he was accused by the French journalist Pierre Péan of having deliberately ignored evidence pointing to Lebanon, Syria and Iran in order to put the blame on Libya
The Mitrokhin Commission, Bruguière participated in, has been discredited following a manipulation by a network to defame Prime minister Romano Prodi and other political opponents of Berlusconi, by claiming they worked for the KGB
Bruguière involved in the 2003 Casablanca bombings case, and the defendants' lawyer questioned his methods
Bruguière's thesis over Rwandan assassination has been very controversial, and criticized by Le Figaro, Libération and others newspapers
Unsuccessful conservative French political candidate
Some way to convey?-- Brendumb ( talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Certain editors find it appropriate to inundate the Allegations section with random quotations.
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that when you have a subject as ideologically charged as this one, where the accusations and counter accusations are equally the product of political sympathies and ideological proclivities, the contestation of fact itself becomes more significant and relevant then the normative preference, i.e. an imaginary idea of a clear, defined and uncontested truth. (Not to suggest at all that all claims are thus equally valid) But even if some of the claims have been manipulated to suit a particular agenda, it is better that they lie ugly, contested, unsubstantiated and disempowered. It is a better reflection of the nature of this topic. In my mind it is irresponsible to try and figure out a depoliticized version of this issue as wikipedia editors are often compelled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.118.71 ( talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
should we consider this informations and add them ? In a respond about eventual terrorist links, Nu Bolat, a French specialist of Turkey who work for IFRI, [6] the French Institute for International Studies, says about IHH : " "His goals are humanitarian, she wants to help Muslims all over the world, for example in the past in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Africa. But his priority is clearly the plight of Palestinians." Its activities have also been banned by Israel, which sees it as an organization close to Hamas, which it would transmit weapons. "This link is to prove," qualifies the researcher." [7] ( It's a French source from a national newspaper) - And both of France and Germany didn't ban IHH. Samuel B52 ( talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be getting bloated again with what Lambiam has summarized so sweetly above as: "According to Bruguière/Kohlmann/Israel/ITIC IHH is bad, but according to IHH/Turkey IHH is good." This also ends up leaving the language all tangled; too many confused antecedents, etc. If it's still a mess tomorrow I'll do some "housecleaning" and hope someone will winnow this down again to an acknowledgment of the two camps without the necessity of providing a quote from each constituent of either camp. Sigh. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
I added the following information, which was removed by Lambiam:
Mete Çubukçu, News Director, NTV, stated: The IHH has a strong Millî Görüş basis. The supporters have a close connection to this Islamist movement. But they say that themselves.[Translated] SWR Television: The German Left in a boat with Turkish Islamists and right-wing extremists
Lambiam's reason for reversion was that this is irrelevant to the section called Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations, because, and I quote: "bad things have been said of Milli Görüş, but not that they are terrorists". The fact that reliable sources allege that Milli Görüş actively supports Hamas is sufficient to establish relevance to this section, it seems to me. See for example http://www.elsevier.nl/web/10219080/Nieuws/Nederland/Bestuurders-Milli-Grs-betrokken-bij-steun-Hamas.htm Can Lambiam give a cogent argument to explain why it is irrelevant to include a Turkish News Director's statement connecting IHH to an organization that (according to reliable sources) actively supports Hamas? Precis ( talk) 09:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Good points, and I find your argument convincing. But it is not clear to me if you feel that the Millî Görüş basis was just mentioned in the wrong section, or if you feel it shouldn't be mentioned at all. I would like to mention this basis in the Background section. Here is my rationale. The way the lead and Background sections currently read, it appears that IHH is only affiliated with humanitarian organizations; IHH's political roots seem to be suppressed. If the Turkish NTV director is to be believed, the strong Millî Görüş basis is not under dispute, and IHH makes no secret of it. As you've pointed out, the Millî Görüş basis does not belong in the section Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations, which deals mainly with disputed allegations of terrorism originating from the West. While I'm on the subject of that section, why is the following paragraph there? Although the Turkish government did not officially support the flotilla, it backed the IHH mission.[57] When the planes with the bodies of the casualties arrived in Istanbul, they were welcomed by Turkey's Vice Prime Minister Bülent Arınç.[58] What does that have to do with terrorism? Precis ( talk) 21:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the citation of an article that says that the group split in two in 1997. This does not look correct. IHH has declared that their German HQ in Freiburg was closed in 1996 following the official foundation of the association in Turkey. The other organisation with the same initials was founded in the city of Frankfurt by totally different people. They have already sued that association for trademark infringement and have published ads on their website and numerous newspapers in Europe in the past years to deny any direct or indirect association. Perhaps we should open a new section on German IHH? -- 386-DX ( talk) 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
According to an article written by Verena Schmitt-Roschmann,
The organization was founded in 1992 in Freiburg, Germany, the ministry said. In 1997 the group split in two, IHH Germany and IHH Turkey, which are now two separate entities, it said.
Here, "the ministry" is the German Interior Ministry (BMI). However, the press release by the BMI does not mention "Freiburg", the "IHH Turkey", or any "split", and a search on the BMI website for "IHH AND Freiburg" also comes up with no hits (in fact, for just "IHH" this press release is the only hit), so the BMI must have said this elsewhere – but if there was a press conference, or if a spokesperson declared this, that is something a journalist would usually mention in a hot news item. There are mentions of Freiburg and this split in articles on the prohibition of IHH e.V. in several major German news sources, but each time as a bare factual statement without ascription to a source, while other statements are duly ascribed to the ministry or the minister. On the face of it, it sounds more as if the source is the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution or Verfassungsschutz (which technically falls under the BMI). Can anyone find more information on the actual source of this statement? -- Lambiam 11:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that says that the Turkish group which emerged from the split 1997 is the Turkish NGO that was involved in the Gaza flotilla? The New York Times reports that the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation was founded in the early 1990s, which suggests that they are two separate groups. Another possibility would be that the Turkish group that emerged from the split has joined the already existing Turkish NGO in 1997, or later. Cs32en Talk to me 10:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned by the apparent WP:OR/ WP:EDITORIAL recently added to the article. Are the following fragment policy compliant without source?
Image caption:
Fragment of declassified 1996 CIA report alleging support of IHH for "extremist/terrorist activity" – but which IHH? (see text)
Body text:
however, the text of that fragment mentions "International Humanitaire Hilfsorganization (IHH)" [sic] having "headquarters in Germany", which can only refer to the German IHH e.V. with which the Turkish IHH is often confused.
This seems to be an original interpretation of primary sources, not backed by any secondary source... With respect to the "Detective work", Wikipedia is not the place for such novel analysis. For now I am reverting this addition for discussion here. Now one more point. Not that it matters (since policy disallows original research in main article space), but a document from 1996 means it was created BEFORE the two groups were split in 1997, so according to the reliable sources we have independent of the subject, the two groups (IHH Germany and IHH Turkey) were both a single group at that date . Comments? Marokwitz ( talk) 06:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 2006 Working paper published by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), with respect to IHH largely based on Bruguière's findings,[56] terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann, citing as source the closing argument for the prosecution in a French criminal court case co-authored by Bruguière, described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report", alleges that Turkey had known of the IHH links to terrorism for at least ten years, and that Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from regional Islamic militant groups.
This sentence, if it may be so dignified, appears to assert that Kohlmann's conclusions about IHH are largely based on Bruguière's findings. Is there a reference for this, or do we have to rely on the original research of some Wikipedia editor who analyzed Kohlmann's paper? Precis ( talk) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 2006 working paper published by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), [2] terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann, citing as source the closing argument for the prosecution in a French criminal court case co-authored by Bruguière, described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report", alleges that Turkey had known of the IHH links to terrorism for at least ten years, and that Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from regional Islamic militant groups.
The proposed new sentence neatly solves the connotation problem, although syntactically it leaves something to be desired. Hemingway it's not. Perhaps break it up into two sentences. As for removing Kohlmann from the lede, I offer the following counterargument. K could have easily ignored B's findings had he found them wanting. If K is removed from the lede, we lose the information that a well known expert on terrorism deemed these findings credible enough to support. If we may interpret the word "affiliations" loosely to mean "close political connections", then I would further argue that K bases his allegations of affiliation on more than just B's; see for example here. Precis ( talk) 02:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
An analogy: Researcher B alleges that drug X causes cancer. NIH Chief K carefully examines B's work, crosschecks B's data, and then writes a paper endorsing B's conclusions. A wiki page says that B and K both allege that X causes cancer. Should we remove the mention of K on the grounds that B and K together offer no stronger validation than B alone? Precis ( talk) 09:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
From "The Slow Death of Gaza" at IHH site http://www.ihh.org.tr/gazzenin-olumu/en/
The 2006 parliamentary election, which was the first democratic election held in the history of Palestine, was expected to bring stability to the country. Instead, it has given way to a deepening crisis and the current clashes. Palestinians raised Hamas, which has contributed greatly to the resistance movement, to power and chose it as the political leadership of Palestine; however, Israel, its Western supporters and certain Arab countries were shocked by the rise of a group to power which they viewed with hostility. These parties cut off relations with the Hamas government rather than negotiating with it, and furthermore offered overt support to opposition groups, thus widening the political differences within Palestine, in line with their interests. International players have refused to recognize the Hamas government, which has been in power since 2006, and have employed practices such as suspending relations, imposing an economic embargo, carrying out military operations, and accepting the Fatah-controlled Palestinian presidency as an alternative government for the past year and a half. Foreign policies in support of a two-headed Palestine have intensified the conflict between Palestinian groups and have engendered the risk of a civil war.
"Although Hamas had centered its efforts on implementing its legal de jure control on the ground, as in accordance with its democratic remit,"
I think the case is clear IHH Support HAMAS Eyal Morag ( talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
State Department Mulls Terror Designation for Gaza 'Aid' Ship Funder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.22.220 ( talk) 14:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any justification for the phrase described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report" beyond the original research of a wiki editor? I don't see where Kohlmann ever explicitly EQUATES reference 45 with a French intelligence report. Is it possible that Kohlmann instead refers to an intelligence report (authored by B) that is discussed WITHIN page 112 of reference 45 (authored by judges B and R)? If not, do we have any proof beyond the sayso of a wiki editor? I propose that the offending phrase be removed, especially since it seems to have no other function than Poisoning the Well. Precis ( talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a better analogy. Author A writes: "According to a confidential CIA report, X happened. [N]", where reference [N] is the New York Times. One should not accuse author A of being so stupid as to equate a CIA report with the NYT report. At most, one could say that author A should have been more precise, by writing "The NYT reports that according to a confidential CIA report, X happened. [N]"
Your Gawker analogy is unsound if only because the referenced author is the same as the source's author (both being Gawker). In the case of Kohlmann, the author referenced is B while the source [45] has two authors. Perhaps you think Kohlmann is sufficiently stupid or careless to equate a one-author report with a two-author report. If so, you may be doing what you say B does, jumping to conclusions.
Reference [45] is well over 150 pages long. For all we know, it contains the entire French intelligence report as a subsection, or at least it quotes the intelligence report extensively. Unless it can be verified that this ain't so, I think you should err on the side of caution.
Regarding your final remarks, I can empathize with your frustration. I'd be tempted to change "M and W assert that X is due to the Lobby", to "M and W, who have mischaracterized X, assert that X is due to the Lobby," especially if I thought journalists were slavishly accepting M and W's characterization of X. Nevertheless, Poisoning the Well should be resisted at all times. Even if it were absolutely verified that Kohlmann mistakenly equated the one-author report with the two-author report, I'd still find it rather petty to point out such a mistake in the middle of the sentence, particularly because such a mistake is not relevant to the rest of the sentence.
This ends my two-pronged attack on the inclusion of your phrase. If you are still not persuaded, I won't remove the phrase. But watch out, lest once you become famous, some journalist writes, "Lambiam, who has practiced well poisoning, asserts that B jumps to conclusions." :) Precis ( talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thought experiment: Let's assume that
(*) The French Intelligence Report (FIT) is included as a subsection in reference [45] (the Bruguière-Ricard report).
In that case, your assertion in the article that Kohlmann equated the FIT with [45] is flat out wrong. Since you continue to stand by your assertion, it appears that you are jumping to the conclusion, without evidence, that (*) is highly unlikely. Someone else might not agree with that conclusion, which illustrates why Wikipedia frowns on original research.
In any case, I wonder why you felt misled in the first place. Kohlmann took pains to state that the FIT was singly authored, so it's hard to imagine that he was trying to pass it off as the doubly authored report [45].
Re your defense of poisoning the well, consider again my Mearsheimer and Walt analogy. They have been accused of sloppy scholarship by several reviewers of their book. Do you give me carte blanche to replace "In their book, M and W point out that ...." with "In their book, M and W, who made a mistake on page 8 , point out that..."? Precis ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to use hypothetical examples to make my point. Here's an actual passage from page 142 of Kohlmann's 2004 book "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network".
A French intelligence report in late July aptly concluded that, while ‘it would be going too far to assert that a “Green International” exists at the present time,’ there was a definite security threat in Western Europe posed by Arab (particularly North African) mujahideen terrorist sleeper cells trained in Bosnia. [76]
So Kohlmann's reference [76] must be a French intelligence report, n'est-ce pas? Mais non. A glance at page 147 reveals that reference [76] is:
76. Inciyan, Erich. ‘France uncovers Islamist networks.’ Manchester Guardian Weekly, 21 July 1996, p. 17.
Kohlmann was simply quoting from Inciyan, who had written the following on page 17:
A report issued by the French security services this month noted that, while "it would be going too far to assert that a 'Green International' exists at the present time", there was a danger that teams of Bosnian trained mojahedin might become operational in western Europe.
Since you continue to insist that Kohlmann equated the Bruguière-Ricard report to a French intelligence report, musn't you now similarly insist on the absurdity that Kohlmann equated a Manchester Guardian Weekly article with a French intelligence report?
P.S. According to Jean-Charles Brisard, the citation for the Bruguière-Ricard report should be:
Réquisitoire définitif aux fins de non-lieu, de non-lieu partiel, de requalification, de renvoi devant le tribunal correctionnel, de maintien sous contrôle judiciaire et de maintien en détention, Parquet du Procureur de la République, 16 Octobre 2000, Affaire P96 253 3901.2
Kohlmann is not much of a proofreader - the spelling in his book got garbled on pages 31, 100, 177, but at least it's close to being right on page 210. Precis ( talk) 11:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"If Cohen and I were mistaken in assuming that the cited Requisitoire is the same as the French intelligence report..." Cohen did not make this mistake. Like Kohlmann himself, she took pains to distinguish the two sources. Both pointed out that the Requisitoire is doubly authored while the intelligence report is singly authored. Regarding the bloggers who conflated the two, for all we know, they may have been influenced by your accusation on Wikipedia. I see nothing in Brisard's statement to support your interpretation. The word "indique" means "indicates". To say "The Guardian indicates X" need not imply that the Guardian is the original source for X. Bottom line: Your clause in the IHH article accuses Kohlmann of intentional misrepresentation. Especially when a living person is maligned, Wikipedia requires a reliable source. You call for Parisian Wikipedians to check out page 112. That would be helpful to settle our dispute, but such original research could not be used as a source in the article. At the beginning of this section, you dismissed my position as being merely "theoretically" possible. But the Inciyan reference above shows that this is practice, not just theory. At the very least, the Inciyan example shows that your conjecture is controversial. According to WP:GRAPEVINE, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); ..." Precis ( talk) 09:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Equating a singly authored document with a doubly authored document is a mistake. In the IHH article, you accuse Kohlmann of making this mistake, and therein lies our dispute. Contrary to your claim, I see no evidence that Cohen made this mistake, and I can't find anything in Cohen's statement that suggests that Kohlmann made this mistake.
I had thought you were accusing Kohlmann of deliberate misrepresentation, based on what you said above, e.g., "unless Kohlmann is trying even harder to create the wrong impression". I stand corrected - you simply contend that Kohlmann actually believed that a report (that he asserts is singly authored) is exactly the same as the doubly authored Réquisitoire.
In his 2004 book, Kohlmann follows his quote from a French intelligence report with the citation [76], which is a Manchester Guardian Weekly article. You've made it clear that you view this method of citation as a "serious error". Even so, you do not contend that Kohlmann actually believed that the French intelligence report and [76] were one and the same document. So why is it that when Kohlmann makes the same type of "serious error" in the DIIS working paper, you are convinced that he believes that the two documents are one and the same? What's the difference? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like an answer to help me understand your reasoning.
Finally, you ask if Brisard could be committing the same type of "serious error". Let's say that a passage ABC..Z appears in the Réquisitoire, followed by a footnote citing a French intelligence report. Brisard then writes informally that the Réquisitoire indicates "ABC..Z". If passage ABC..Z is just a paraphrase from the French intelligence report, then Brisard made no error at all. Of course I haven't seen the Réquisitoire, so all this is speculation. You haven't seen it either, and you are speculating as well. According to WP:GRAPEVINE, conjecture must not be used as a basis for maligning a living person in a Wikipedia article. Precis ( talk) 10:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The article should be moved to İHH (Turkish NGO). It is a Turkish name, the first word is "İnsan", the name in the logo is also "İHH". Kavas ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
First check these claims: "IHH is also known to be a radical Islamist organisation dedicated to the ideology that is genocidal in its antisemitism, sexist, homophobic and anti-democratic."
Second, balance is needed if this op-ed is to be included:
The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."[1] According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
New User:Jayaka appears to be an identity created for the purpose of removing information, some sourced and some not, about the Islamist ideology of the IHH. Broad Wall ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More weight needs to be added to its support of terrorist orginizations and it's racism against Jews. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too much weight is already given to these allegations. The fact that only Israel, and not even the US, considers it a terrorist organization strongly suggests that such claims are exaggerated. Therefore, there should be less weight given to them than already is given in the article. - Pgan002 ( talk) 07:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that's why many people are likely to be reading it at the moment, it seems odd that the Gaza Flotilla isn't mentioned. It would be useful to make clear exactly what the link between IHH and the flotilla is. Robofish ( talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest something like this: "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction. International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PS: I think I may have added this. I thought the page was locked, but maybe not?
If so we shouldadd that Israel and other sources they were the instigators of the violence on theHate Flotilla. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved Ronhjones (Talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
IHH (Turkish NGO) → İHH (Turkish NGO) — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per Turkish spelling of a Turkish charity Kavas ( talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.In this link http://www.investigativeproject.org/1998/ihhs-deep-longstanding-terror-ties, there is a report on the connections of the IHH to terrorist activities. I think that currently the fact that IHH is involved in terrorism is sublimated in the article. There are additional resources of course (some of them already mentioned in the conversation page) MorningTwilight ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
First check these claims: "IHH is also known to be a radical Islamist organisation dedicated to the ideology that is genocidal in its antisemitism, sexist, homophobic and anti-democratic."
Second, balance is needed if this op-ed is to be included:
The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."[1] According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
New User:Jayaka appears to be an identity created for the purpose of removing information, some sourced and some not, about the Islamist ideology of the IHH. Broad Wall ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More weight needs to be added to its support of terrorist orginizations and it's racism against Jews. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too much weight is already given to these allegations. The fact that only Israel, and not even the US, considers it a terrorist organization strongly suggests that such claims are exaggerated. Therefore, there should be less weight given to them than already is given in the article. - Pgan002 ( talk) 07:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though some are overlooking the fact that these allegations have been mentioned already in the article, and that they are nothing more than that: allegations. User:Yserbius is perpetuating an unfounded bias by making definitive sentences (that are sometimes contrary to sections later in the article) without any citation. I have removed the sentences that were added by this user into the introduction. WiiVolve ( talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Reading all the projects at the IHH site no just the title [1] It is clear that the IHH Is Islamic org mainly helping Muslims and the Muslims religion practice
Crap. This has become a mess again. If it is still a mess tomorrow I'll try to straighten out the grammar and usage and get the citations linked to the right things again. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
I realize you are fighting against repeated opinion attacks and revisions but somebody really needs to go over the page and do simple proofreading and copy editing. (Update -- thanks, it looks much better today.) You've got typos, words missing, etc. There's also currently no reference or link to the Gaza Flotilla or the Wikipedia Gaza flotilla raid entry, which seems lame given the "current event" warnings. Demonstrate the commitment to quality and clarity over politics by spending some fraction of the time devoted to swapping and re-swapping pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian political arguments to cleaning up the writing for clarity and correctness. People come here looking for information; whatever the controversy it would be nice if the entry were coherent. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an indirect reference to the Gaza Flotilla incident ("several members went on the boat"), plus a "previously arrested" phrase which could mean previous to the 1997 raid (which is described redundantly in succeeding sentences) or previous to the Gaza Flotilla. Winter Maiden ( talk) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I still think there needs to be a brief statement such as, "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction [ [1]]." PS: Hey, I think I added this. I thought the page was locked, but I guess not?
>>Message from YalePhDHistory<< (I realize this may be an admin board so if you have a better place to put this message so that people can read it, please do move it there.) Listen up folks, I am posting excerpts that are thoroughly and properly cited and are a compilation of reports from the FBI, CIA, French, Turkish, and Danish Intelligence Services. Do not delete my post unless you have some issue with reality or have minor appearance issues. This is neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, these are the facts regarding the activities and connections of the IHH as they are seen by global intelligence services. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YalePhDHistory (
talk •
contribs)
15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost all the references under the heading "controversy" are Israeli sources. The allegations are brought by the Israeli side and they are then proven by Israeli references. No dictionary can be built on such tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.59.102 ( talk) 23:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Some Israeli people trying to vandalise this article, and add false claims about Humanitarian Aid Foundation. Last paragraph where they claim it has links to al-kaida is one of those edits.
All the info about IHH's alleged terrorist links are properly sourced, with references to established daily papers, quotes from the Carnegie Endowment, etc. Someone is censoring that information.
Please stop the nonsense, or you will get banned by the admins. 85.103.12.75 ( talk)
1. "by conservative American analyst Evan Kohlman"
Is there any evidence he is conservative? His wiki page does not so describe him. This seems like an attempt to dismiss his reportage based his background, a background that is not even sourced.
2. Apparently, Kohlman's theory about IHH has not gained traction, since IHH remains a legal organization everywhere except Israel, which banned it in 2008.
This seems to be original research. The states that have not banned IHH are political entities with their own agendas, not academic organizations designed to confirm or dispute research. In particular they all want to maintain good relations with the current govt of Turkey, which seems to protect the IHH.
3. The entire article seems to have POV issues, in tone and layout.
4. I have added further info on Izzat Shahin's activities on the West Bank to add contect to the deportation.
Ricardianman ( talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(talya) hey i would just like to add some links that proves the connections to the Hamas and other terroists: http://www.ie.edu/IE/site/php/en/school_communication_detail.php?id_new=111 http://www.velfecr.com/gazze-de-goz-yasartan-buyuk-bulusma-video-foto-1408-haberi.html http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4168 http://www.diis.dk/sw241.asp http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/14/oh-jesus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.230.106 ( talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree this article has been hijacked by pro-Israel groups.--
shirbil (
talk)
04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Realizing that this page has come under "semi-protection" for it's possible vandalism, and why, politics again. It is worth noting, and it should be added that in a de-classified report titled "“International Islamic NGOs and Links to Terrorism” from the CIA, the IHH is listed as having "links with extremist groups in Iran and Algeria and was either active or facilitating activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia." Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Some more background, and an editor who is more "Wiki-savvy" than I would surely be able to present this information correctly, is this http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vr1qsPY-xJ8J:www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/312.pdf+Is+%C4%B0nsani+Yard%C4%B1m+Vakf%C4%B1+listed+by+the+US+as+a+terrorist+organization%3F&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgovB4G22Iw7qoltk25qw7z8KFJhw5XXxxU22cstSwFFJPNdbB4cYnpD60HqN1RmdCYVeO5G3bxmiLlk77fGtZP5oqCfMViLrLkPdaOMoWYMW1JOkR02dDdxL880qVfw1w3HdaQ&sig=AHIEtbTt8Rro9Y-fCnl6WrzYWMJOXwamXw PDF of court documents related to IHH, et al. in a federal money laundering case for HAMAS. Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 08:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The present title is a curious hybrid of English and Turkish spelling. Please note that the Turkish alphabet has two distinct letters, dotted and dotless I. In English texts these are often mapped to letters in the Basic Latin alphabet, as follows: the dotless minuscule ı is mapped to dotted i, while the dotted majuscule İ is mapped to dotless I. Here we see the majuscule being mapped while the minuscules remain unmapped, which is rather inconsistent.
Some facts about the name (source: www.ihh.org.tr):
# ^ Modified 12:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) by adding a second ve; see explanation on the article's page. -- Lambiam
The problems with the current version of the page name are:
I think together they have enough weight to make clear that the page should be moved to a better title. (We should of course retain all remotely plausible variants as redirects.)
According to the rule "most common in English", IHH would be the most appropriate name for the article; however, IHH has already been taken and is in the long run probably the better candidate for occupying this page. Next, the most plausible candidates for the name are:
In order of preference, I'd say 1.2, then 2, then 1.1, with 3 as least preferable. What do others think? -- Lambiam 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It turns out that there is also a German humanitarian relief organization named Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation (which means "International Humanitarian Relief Organization"), based in Frankfurt am Main. As could be expected, this organization generally goes by the initialism IHH. Although having a similar (but not identical) logo and also being run by Turks with an emphasis on projects in Muslim countries, this organization states on its website that it should not be confused with the Turkish IHH (the subject of this article) and that it was not involved in the "Free Gaza" campaign. -- Lambiam
Follow-up: Several sources (also "reliable" ones) mention Internationale Humanitäre Hilfsorganisation and the Internationale Humanitaire Hulporganisatie as, respectively, the German and Dutch branches of the Turkish İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı. However, the other day the head of İHH was on Turkish television, and when interviewed about the relationship he stated that these organizations had been founded and adopted the initials IHH during the Bosnian war in order to profit from the success of the Turkish organization, and that İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı had begun instituting legal proceeding against them – but that progress was slow due to the difficulties of a border-crossing legal process. -- Lambiam 07:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit is made up of copying, word for word, copyrighted material.The text (including the citations) is lifted from the DIIS study ( here). nableezy - 22:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Text in the Alleged terrorist ties section is also lifted from the WINEP paper. nableezy - 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it rather appalling how all kinds of claims of often dubious provenance – the kind of disinformation the intelligence community is adept in seeding and spreading around – are copied uncritically to the article, without an examination of the stated sources. If A claims that B states that X, we should not simply report that in the form: "B states that X", copying the reference (if any) given by A. We should only report this in such a way if we have examined that reference ourselves, and found that the claim is accurate. Otherwise (if the cited source is not available, so we cannot examine it), if we report this claim at all, we should cite it from A – but only if A is a truly reliable source, which many think tanks, political analysts, and other pundits, are not. -- Lambiam 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with you Lambiam. The whole section on Islamist affiliations is written in a way reminiscent of extremist leaflets. All the sources cited are simple hearsay, specific persons' opinions, or, at best, conclusions of think-tanks and institutes.
I strongly believe that we should just keep the allegations of the "Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", although even that could be better-cited, and maybe the bit from the Reuters factbox about Izzet Sahin. The rest, IMO, should definitely go.
Awaiting your opinions. Steloukos ( talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been checking in on this page throughout the past week, and making formatting, usage, and grammar corrections to try to keep it readable, but have tried to leave decisions about content to those with more information or more Wikipedia experience, or both. What I want from the article is for people who wonder what IHH is to be able to find out its public identity, its role in the flotilla incident, the fact that a controversy exists over its possible ties to Islamic extremism, and the major players making claims on each side of the controversy, with appropriate pointers if people wish to pursue further. I have to say that today's version (Friday, June 4, 1:45 pm ET) seems really well done. I did change: Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH had ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH was aiding terrorism." to the present-tense "Israel and various international organizations (such as the Danish Institute for International Studies[3] claim that the IHH has ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda) and that the IHH aids terrorism." mainly for grammar/usage reasons -- ties in the past are still ties, and organizations are still claiming IHH's actions this week mostly help terrorists. Thus, present tense is appropriate. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P
Is the source used in paragraph acceptable? The document ( testimony16.pdf) is a court transcript, and as such I think can't be used on its own becuase it's a primary source: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Misarxist ( talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't require any analysis - it's just what the Judge said. Originally I posted what he said verbatim, which has now been edited. Why can't we use a court transcript on it's own? It's just like a transcript of a radio interview, can't we use that? It's more genuine than someone paraphrasing what he said in a secondary source Calanen ( talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This reference (currently note 3) "Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, The". NGO Branch, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=showProfileDetails&tab=1&profileCode=2525. Retrieved 2010-06-02. provides a link to IHH's profile page, but it is a search result and the link isn't stable--when your search times out, it reverts to the search page. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on such a link. I added a direct link to the public document listing NGOs, which also supports the assertion (currently note 4), so this one could come out. 74.104.211.63 ( talk) 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P
I think "allegations of terrorist affiliations" is a better title than the "alleged islamist and jihadist affiliations" the second one seems to carry racist implications. It also appears take Israeli accusations as facts. ManasShaikh ( talk) 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference in the opening section to the flotilla victims being "killed at close range and some in the back" because a) you can't be "killed at close range," or rather, you are always killed at close range, death being among the most intimately personal of experiences. What you can or can not be at close range is "shot". Likewise, you can't be killed in the back. You can be shot in the back, stabbed in the back, etc. AND b) but either way, it's not relevant to a description/definition of IHH. It may be relevant to the entry on the Gaza flotilla raid, which this article handily links to; if so, it should be added there, and good luck to it. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 02:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
This link is used as a reference to the lack of IHH being on the US State Departments list of 45 terrorist organizations.
This link does not provide a reference for that, it instead goes directly to a follow-up article regarding the boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie provided by the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). This being a neutral source can certainly be questioned. Erelas RyAlcar ( talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Dug up real references at US State Department -- DOS Terrorist Organizations list and transcript of the June 2 press briefing in which PJ Crowley actually says the words "can't be validated". VSO'P 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed a parenthetical about an offer to land at Ashdod because it wasn't supported by the references attached to it (which applied to the first half of the original sentence but not to the Ashdod offer) and because I could not determine whether this was supposed to refer to the standing offer from the IDF to allow aid ships to land at Ashdod or the demand from the IDF group intercepting the flotilla that the ships go to Ashdod. The whole thing is laid out pretty well in the Gaza flotilla raid page. If it's going to be reiterated here it needs more than a single passive-voice clause to make it understandable for readers. VSO'P. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. Seems reasonable and there are no objections. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) → IHH (Turkish NGO) — Above I've explained the problems with the current title and why it should be moved to a better title. After ample consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the best disambiguating phrase is "Turkish NGO"; it is impeccably NPOV, and makes immediately clear which meaning of "IHH" this is. -- Lambiam 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is not very stable, as allegations are being added and removed without apparent effort to reach a consensus.
It should be clear that a PR war is going on in the media, in which one side wants the world to think that Israel, in an act of piracy on the free seas, murdered a bunch of innocent peace-loving people with no other aim than to bring humanitarian aid to victims of cruel oppression, while another side is promoting the viewpoint that a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency planned and provoked a violent confrontation with a group of unsuspecting commandos attempting a nonviolent takeover of a vessel about to break a legal blockade. Now I don't know which is closer to the truth, as all information I have access to is from this PR battlefield. What I do notice, though, is that almost all published allegations directed against IHH simply parrot earlier allegations, sometimes with attribution to a source, but often without.
Wikipedia must not serve as a theatre of war, and we as editors must avoid being used as pawns. On the other hand, the allegations do exist, they are (obviously) notable, and should be reported on – and such reports should not be summarily removed if they are in conformance with our core policies. But please do not use tertiary sources if there is a secondary source that can be cited. For example, there is an allegation that IHH is a member of the Union of Good, which is reportedly the reason why the organization was banned by Israel. Now I don't know whether this is so or not, but I haven't been able to find any other originating source than the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), for example here. (See also this copy of a report by the ITIC – reported by Google search as being on the ITIC website, but that has now become a dead link – which manages to confuse the German IHH with the Turkish IHH.) This Union-of-Good allegation has been repeated all over the Western media, but all appears to be based, ultimately, on the Israeli assertion. Almost all other allegations can be traced back to Bruguière, mostly by way of Kohlmann. If twenty sources parrot Kohlmann, it does not become twenty times as true.
Also please avoid using opinion pieces, unless the source is notable, such as an editorial in a major newspaper, but then it should be clearly identified as such.
Should we have a spinout article with a title such as "Allegations of terrorist affiliations of IHH (Turkish NGO)" (while leaving an adequate summary here)? It could perhaps help to make the present article more stable, and also allow in-depth treatment that would be excessive in this article. -- Lambiam 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It is obvious that edits are being added to this article to support the (notable) allegations of IHH links with terrorism, but without mentioning the counter-arguments that it is active in many countries, and has been investigated in many countries, without it having been restricted outside of Israel. This is WP:UNDUE, bordering on WP:FRINGE. I have added an {{ npov}} tag to the article, and watchlisted it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there remaining unresolved NPOV issues that are of sufficient importance to justify keeping the {{
POV-section}}
box on the section
Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations? Unless serious issues are identified, I'll remove it in a couple of days. --
Lambiam
20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:LABEL say "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious. If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources, use a more specific term such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage taker, or kidnapper. If none of these apply, use a more neutral, general word such as insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, or militant.
The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy, and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." -- Brendumb ( talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel named terrorist living in America who "tried to bring electronic components into the Gaza Strip, which Israel has forbidden". Israelis pressing the Americans to quit harboring terrorists? Or is America terrorist for supporting terrorist who support terrorist?-- 71.156.84.246 ( talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from above,
In the 2001 book "Manipulations Africaines", he was accused by the French journalist Pierre Péan of having deliberately ignored evidence pointing to Lebanon, Syria and Iran in order to put the blame on Libya
The Mitrokhin Commission, Bruguière participated in, has been discredited following a manipulation by a network to defame Prime minister Romano Prodi and other political opponents of Berlusconi, by claiming they worked for the KGB
Bruguière involved in the 2003 Casablanca bombings case, and the defendants' lawyer questioned his methods
Bruguière's thesis over Rwandan assassination has been very controversial, and criticized by Le Figaro, Libération and others newspapers
Unsuccessful conservative French political candidate
Some way to convey?-- Brendumb ( talk) 04:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Certain editors find it appropriate to inundate the Allegations section with random quotations.
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that when you have a subject as ideologically charged as this one, where the accusations and counter accusations are equally the product of political sympathies and ideological proclivities, the contestation of fact itself becomes more significant and relevant then the normative preference, i.e. an imaginary idea of a clear, defined and uncontested truth. (Not to suggest at all that all claims are thus equally valid) But even if some of the claims have been manipulated to suit a particular agenda, it is better that they lie ugly, contested, unsubstantiated and disempowered. It is a better reflection of the nature of this topic. In my mind it is irresponsible to try and figure out a depoliticized version of this issue as wikipedia editors are often compelled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.118.71 ( talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
should we consider this informations and add them ? In a respond about eventual terrorist links, Nu Bolat, a French specialist of Turkey who work for IFRI, [6] the French Institute for International Studies, says about IHH : " "His goals are humanitarian, she wants to help Muslims all over the world, for example in the past in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Africa. But his priority is clearly the plight of Palestinians." Its activities have also been banned by Israel, which sees it as an organization close to Hamas, which it would transmit weapons. "This link is to prove," qualifies the researcher." [7] ( It's a French source from a national newspaper) - And both of France and Germany didn't ban IHH. Samuel B52 ( talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be getting bloated again with what Lambiam has summarized so sweetly above as: "According to Bruguière/Kohlmann/Israel/ITIC IHH is bad, but according to IHH/Turkey IHH is good." This also ends up leaving the language all tangled; too many confused antecedents, etc. If it's still a mess tomorrow I'll do some "housecleaning" and hope someone will winnow this down again to an acknowledgment of the two camps without the necessity of providing a quote from each constituent of either camp. Sigh. 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)VSO'P.
I added the following information, which was removed by Lambiam:
Mete Çubukçu, News Director, NTV, stated: The IHH has a strong Millî Görüş basis. The supporters have a close connection to this Islamist movement. But they say that themselves.[Translated] SWR Television: The German Left in a boat with Turkish Islamists and right-wing extremists
Lambiam's reason for reversion was that this is irrelevant to the section called Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations, because, and I quote: "bad things have been said of Milli Görüş, but not that they are terrorists". The fact that reliable sources allege that Milli Görüş actively supports Hamas is sufficient to establish relevance to this section, it seems to me. See for example http://www.elsevier.nl/web/10219080/Nieuws/Nederland/Bestuurders-Milli-Grs-betrokken-bij-steun-Hamas.htm Can Lambiam give a cogent argument to explain why it is irrelevant to include a Turkish News Director's statement connecting IHH to an organization that (according to reliable sources) actively supports Hamas? Precis ( talk) 09:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Good points, and I find your argument convincing. But it is not clear to me if you feel that the Millî Görüş basis was just mentioned in the wrong section, or if you feel it shouldn't be mentioned at all. I would like to mention this basis in the Background section. Here is my rationale. The way the lead and Background sections currently read, it appears that IHH is only affiliated with humanitarian organizations; IHH's political roots seem to be suppressed. If the Turkish NTV director is to be believed, the strong Millî Görüş basis is not under dispute, and IHH makes no secret of it. As you've pointed out, the Millî Görüş basis does not belong in the section Allegations of affiliations with terrorist organizations, which deals mainly with disputed allegations of terrorism originating from the West. While I'm on the subject of that section, why is the following paragraph there? Although the Turkish government did not officially support the flotilla, it backed the IHH mission.[57] When the planes with the bodies of the casualties arrived in Istanbul, they were welcomed by Turkey's Vice Prime Minister Bülent Arınç.[58] What does that have to do with terrorism? Precis ( talk) 21:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see the citation of an article that says that the group split in two in 1997. This does not look correct. IHH has declared that their German HQ in Freiburg was closed in 1996 following the official foundation of the association in Turkey. The other organisation with the same initials was founded in the city of Frankfurt by totally different people. They have already sued that association for trademark infringement and have published ads on their website and numerous newspapers in Europe in the past years to deny any direct or indirect association. Perhaps we should open a new section on German IHH? -- 386-DX ( talk) 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
According to an article written by Verena Schmitt-Roschmann,
The organization was founded in 1992 in Freiburg, Germany, the ministry said. In 1997 the group split in two, IHH Germany and IHH Turkey, which are now two separate entities, it said.
Here, "the ministry" is the German Interior Ministry (BMI). However, the press release by the BMI does not mention "Freiburg", the "IHH Turkey", or any "split", and a search on the BMI website for "IHH AND Freiburg" also comes up with no hits (in fact, for just "IHH" this press release is the only hit), so the BMI must have said this elsewhere – but if there was a press conference, or if a spokesperson declared this, that is something a journalist would usually mention in a hot news item. There are mentions of Freiburg and this split in articles on the prohibition of IHH e.V. in several major German news sources, but each time as a bare factual statement without ascription to a source, while other statements are duly ascribed to the ministry or the minister. On the face of it, it sounds more as if the source is the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution or Verfassungsschutz (which technically falls under the BMI). Can anyone find more information on the actual source of this statement? -- Lambiam 11:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that says that the Turkish group which emerged from the split 1997 is the Turkish NGO that was involved in the Gaza flotilla? The New York Times reports that the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation was founded in the early 1990s, which suggests that they are two separate groups. Another possibility would be that the Turkish group that emerged from the split has joined the already existing Turkish NGO in 1997, or later. Cs32en Talk to me 10:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned by the apparent WP:OR/ WP:EDITORIAL recently added to the article. Are the following fragment policy compliant without source?
Image caption:
Fragment of declassified 1996 CIA report alleging support of IHH for "extremist/terrorist activity" – but which IHH? (see text)
Body text:
however, the text of that fragment mentions "International Humanitaire Hilfsorganization (IHH)" [sic] having "headquarters in Germany", which can only refer to the German IHH e.V. with which the Turkish IHH is often confused.
This seems to be an original interpretation of primary sources, not backed by any secondary source... With respect to the "Detective work", Wikipedia is not the place for such novel analysis. For now I am reverting this addition for discussion here. Now one more point. Not that it matters (since policy disallows original research in main article space), but a document from 1996 means it was created BEFORE the two groups were split in 1997, so according to the reliable sources we have independent of the subject, the two groups (IHH Germany and IHH Turkey) were both a single group at that date . Comments? Marokwitz ( talk) 06:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 2006 Working paper published by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), with respect to IHH largely based on Bruguière's findings,[56] terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann, citing as source the closing argument for the prosecution in a French criminal court case co-authored by Bruguière, described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report", alleges that Turkey had known of the IHH links to terrorism for at least ten years, and that Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from regional Islamic militant groups.
This sentence, if it may be so dignified, appears to assert that Kohlmann's conclusions about IHH are largely based on Bruguière's findings. Is there a reference for this, or do we have to rely on the original research of some Wikipedia editor who analyzed Kohlmann's paper? Precis ( talk) 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In a 2006 working paper published by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), [2] terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann, citing as source the closing argument for the prosecution in a French criminal court case co-authored by Bruguière, described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report", alleges that Turkey had known of the IHH links to terrorism for at least ten years, and that Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from regional Islamic militant groups.
The proposed new sentence neatly solves the connotation problem, although syntactically it leaves something to be desired. Hemingway it's not. Perhaps break it up into two sentences. As for removing Kohlmann from the lede, I offer the following counterargument. K could have easily ignored B's findings had he found them wanting. If K is removed from the lede, we lose the information that a well known expert on terrorism deemed these findings credible enough to support. If we may interpret the word "affiliations" loosely to mean "close political connections", then I would further argue that K bases his allegations of affiliation on more than just B's; see for example here. Precis ( talk) 02:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
An analogy: Researcher B alleges that drug X causes cancer. NIH Chief K carefully examines B's work, crosschecks B's data, and then writes a paper endorsing B's conclusions. A wiki page says that B and K both allege that X causes cancer. Should we remove the mention of K on the grounds that B and K together offer no stronger validation than B alone? Precis ( talk) 09:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
From "The Slow Death of Gaza" at IHH site http://www.ihh.org.tr/gazzenin-olumu/en/
The 2006 parliamentary election, which was the first democratic election held in the history of Palestine, was expected to bring stability to the country. Instead, it has given way to a deepening crisis and the current clashes. Palestinians raised Hamas, which has contributed greatly to the resistance movement, to power and chose it as the political leadership of Palestine; however, Israel, its Western supporters and certain Arab countries were shocked by the rise of a group to power which they viewed with hostility. These parties cut off relations with the Hamas government rather than negotiating with it, and furthermore offered overt support to opposition groups, thus widening the political differences within Palestine, in line with their interests. International players have refused to recognize the Hamas government, which has been in power since 2006, and have employed practices such as suspending relations, imposing an economic embargo, carrying out military operations, and accepting the Fatah-controlled Palestinian presidency as an alternative government for the past year and a half. Foreign policies in support of a two-headed Palestine have intensified the conflict between Palestinian groups and have engendered the risk of a civil war.
"Although Hamas had centered its efforts on implementing its legal de jure control on the ground, as in accordance with its democratic remit,"
I think the case is clear IHH Support HAMAS Eyal Morag ( talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
State Department Mulls Terror Designation for Gaza 'Aid' Ship Funder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.22.220 ( talk) 14:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any justification for the phrase described by Kohlmann as "a French intelligence report" beyond the original research of a wiki editor? I don't see where Kohlmann ever explicitly EQUATES reference 45 with a French intelligence report. Is it possible that Kohlmann instead refers to an intelligence report (authored by B) that is discussed WITHIN page 112 of reference 45 (authored by judges B and R)? If not, do we have any proof beyond the sayso of a wiki editor? I propose that the offending phrase be removed, especially since it seems to have no other function than Poisoning the Well. Precis ( talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a better analogy. Author A writes: "According to a confidential CIA report, X happened. [N]", where reference [N] is the New York Times. One should not accuse author A of being so stupid as to equate a CIA report with the NYT report. At most, one could say that author A should have been more precise, by writing "The NYT reports that according to a confidential CIA report, X happened. [N]"
Your Gawker analogy is unsound if only because the referenced author is the same as the source's author (both being Gawker). In the case of Kohlmann, the author referenced is B while the source [45] has two authors. Perhaps you think Kohlmann is sufficiently stupid or careless to equate a one-author report with a two-author report. If so, you may be doing what you say B does, jumping to conclusions.
Reference [45] is well over 150 pages long. For all we know, it contains the entire French intelligence report as a subsection, or at least it quotes the intelligence report extensively. Unless it can be verified that this ain't so, I think you should err on the side of caution.
Regarding your final remarks, I can empathize with your frustration. I'd be tempted to change "M and W assert that X is due to the Lobby", to "M and W, who have mischaracterized X, assert that X is due to the Lobby," especially if I thought journalists were slavishly accepting M and W's characterization of X. Nevertheless, Poisoning the Well should be resisted at all times. Even if it were absolutely verified that Kohlmann mistakenly equated the one-author report with the two-author report, I'd still find it rather petty to point out such a mistake in the middle of the sentence, particularly because such a mistake is not relevant to the rest of the sentence.
This ends my two-pronged attack on the inclusion of your phrase. If you are still not persuaded, I won't remove the phrase. But watch out, lest once you become famous, some journalist writes, "Lambiam, who has practiced well poisoning, asserts that B jumps to conclusions." :) Precis ( talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thought experiment: Let's assume that
(*) The French Intelligence Report (FIT) is included as a subsection in reference [45] (the Bruguière-Ricard report).
In that case, your assertion in the article that Kohlmann equated the FIT with [45] is flat out wrong. Since you continue to stand by your assertion, it appears that you are jumping to the conclusion, without evidence, that (*) is highly unlikely. Someone else might not agree with that conclusion, which illustrates why Wikipedia frowns on original research.
In any case, I wonder why you felt misled in the first place. Kohlmann took pains to state that the FIT was singly authored, so it's hard to imagine that he was trying to pass it off as the doubly authored report [45].
Re your defense of poisoning the well, consider again my Mearsheimer and Walt analogy. They have been accused of sloppy scholarship by several reviewers of their book. Do you give me carte blanche to replace "In their book, M and W point out that ...." with "In their book, M and W, who made a mistake on page 8 , point out that..."? Precis ( talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to use hypothetical examples to make my point. Here's an actual passage from page 142 of Kohlmann's 2004 book "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network".
A French intelligence report in late July aptly concluded that, while ‘it would be going too far to assert that a “Green International” exists at the present time,’ there was a definite security threat in Western Europe posed by Arab (particularly North African) mujahideen terrorist sleeper cells trained in Bosnia. [76]
So Kohlmann's reference [76] must be a French intelligence report, n'est-ce pas? Mais non. A glance at page 147 reveals that reference [76] is:
76. Inciyan, Erich. ‘France uncovers Islamist networks.’ Manchester Guardian Weekly, 21 July 1996, p. 17.
Kohlmann was simply quoting from Inciyan, who had written the following on page 17:
A report issued by the French security services this month noted that, while "it would be going too far to assert that a 'Green International' exists at the present time", there was a danger that teams of Bosnian trained mojahedin might become operational in western Europe.
Since you continue to insist that Kohlmann equated the Bruguière-Ricard report to a French intelligence report, musn't you now similarly insist on the absurdity that Kohlmann equated a Manchester Guardian Weekly article with a French intelligence report?
P.S. According to Jean-Charles Brisard, the citation for the Bruguière-Ricard report should be:
Réquisitoire définitif aux fins de non-lieu, de non-lieu partiel, de requalification, de renvoi devant le tribunal correctionnel, de maintien sous contrôle judiciaire et de maintien en détention, Parquet du Procureur de la République, 16 Octobre 2000, Affaire P96 253 3901.2
Kohlmann is not much of a proofreader - the spelling in his book got garbled on pages 31, 100, 177, but at least it's close to being right on page 210. Precis ( talk) 11:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"If Cohen and I were mistaken in assuming that the cited Requisitoire is the same as the French intelligence report..." Cohen did not make this mistake. Like Kohlmann himself, she took pains to distinguish the two sources. Both pointed out that the Requisitoire is doubly authored while the intelligence report is singly authored. Regarding the bloggers who conflated the two, for all we know, they may have been influenced by your accusation on Wikipedia. I see nothing in Brisard's statement to support your interpretation. The word "indique" means "indicates". To say "The Guardian indicates X" need not imply that the Guardian is the original source for X. Bottom line: Your clause in the IHH article accuses Kohlmann of intentional misrepresentation. Especially when a living person is maligned, Wikipedia requires a reliable source. You call for Parisian Wikipedians to check out page 112. That would be helpful to settle our dispute, but such original research could not be used as a source in the article. At the beginning of this section, you dismissed my position as being merely "theoretically" possible. But the Inciyan reference above shows that this is practice, not just theory. At the very least, the Inciyan example shows that your conjecture is controversial. According to WP:GRAPEVINE, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); ..." Precis ( talk) 09:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Equating a singly authored document with a doubly authored document is a mistake. In the IHH article, you accuse Kohlmann of making this mistake, and therein lies our dispute. Contrary to your claim, I see no evidence that Cohen made this mistake, and I can't find anything in Cohen's statement that suggests that Kohlmann made this mistake.
I had thought you were accusing Kohlmann of deliberate misrepresentation, based on what you said above, e.g., "unless Kohlmann is trying even harder to create the wrong impression". I stand corrected - you simply contend that Kohlmann actually believed that a report (that he asserts is singly authored) is exactly the same as the doubly authored Réquisitoire.
In his 2004 book, Kohlmann follows his quote from a French intelligence report with the citation [76], which is a Manchester Guardian Weekly article. You've made it clear that you view this method of citation as a "serious error". Even so, you do not contend that Kohlmann actually believed that the French intelligence report and [76] were one and the same document. So why is it that when Kohlmann makes the same type of "serious error" in the DIIS working paper, you are convinced that he believes that the two documents are one and the same? What's the difference? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd like an answer to help me understand your reasoning.
Finally, you ask if Brisard could be committing the same type of "serious error". Let's say that a passage ABC..Z appears in the Réquisitoire, followed by a footnote citing a French intelligence report. Brisard then writes informally that the Réquisitoire indicates "ABC..Z". If passage ABC..Z is just a paraphrase from the French intelligence report, then Brisard made no error at all. Of course I haven't seen the Réquisitoire, so all this is speculation. You haven't seen it either, and you are speculating as well. According to WP:GRAPEVINE, conjecture must not be used as a basis for maligning a living person in a Wikipedia article. Precis ( talk) 10:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The article should be moved to İHH (Turkish NGO). It is a Turkish name, the first word is "İnsan", the name in the logo is also "İHH". Kavas ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
First check these claims: "IHH is also known to be a radical Islamist organisation dedicated to the ideology that is genocidal in its antisemitism, sexist, homophobic and anti-democratic."
Second, balance is needed if this op-ed is to be included:
The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."[1] According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
New User:Jayaka appears to be an identity created for the purpose of removing information, some sourced and some not, about the Islamist ideology of the IHH. Broad Wall ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More weight needs to be added to its support of terrorist orginizations and it's racism against Jews. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too much weight is already given to these allegations. The fact that only Israel, and not even the US, considers it a terrorist organization strongly suggests that such claims are exaggerated. Therefore, there should be less weight given to them than already is given in the article. - Pgan002 ( talk) 07:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that's why many people are likely to be reading it at the moment, it seems odd that the Gaza Flotilla isn't mentioned. It would be useful to make clear exactly what the link between IHH and the flotilla is. Robofish ( talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I suggest something like this: "IHH was one of the organizers of the Gaza flotilla, an aid flotilla of six ships carrying 663 activists from 37 nations intended to break through the blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. The ships were boarded and seized by Israeli naval forces on May 31, 2010, resulting in at least 10 deaths and prompting international reaction. International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.173.41 ( talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PS: I think I may have added this. I thought the page was locked, but maybe not?
If so we shouldadd that Israel and other sources they were the instigators of the violence on theHate Flotilla. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus, page not moved Ronhjones (Talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
IHH (Turkish NGO) → İHH (Turkish NGO) — Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per Turkish spelling of a Turkish charity Kavas ( talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.In this link http://www.investigativeproject.org/1998/ihhs-deep-longstanding-terror-ties, there is a report on the connections of the IHH to terrorist activities. I think that currently the fact that IHH is involved in terrorism is sublimated in the article. There are additional resources of course (some of them already mentioned in the conversation page) MorningTwilight ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
First check these claims: "IHH is also known to be a radical Islamist organisation dedicated to the ideology that is genocidal in its antisemitism, sexist, homophobic and anti-democratic."
Second, balance is needed if this op-ed is to be included:
The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."[1] According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sextusempericus ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
New User:Jayaka appears to be an identity created for the purpose of removing information, some sourced and some not, about the Islamist ideology of the IHH. Broad Wall ( talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More weight needs to be added to its support of terrorist orginizations and it's racism against Jews. Unicorn76 ( talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too much weight is already given to these allegations. The fact that only Israel, and not even the US, considers it a terrorist organization strongly suggests that such claims are exaggerated. Therefore, there should be less weight given to them than already is given in the article. - Pgan002 ( talk) 07:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though some are overlooking the fact that these allegations have been mentioned already in the article, and that they are nothing more than that: allegations. User:Yserbius is perpetuating an unfounded bias by making definitive sentences (that are sometimes contrary to sections later in the article) without any citation. I have removed the sentences that were added by this user into the introduction. WiiVolve ( talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)