Talk:Human Appeal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human Appeal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 28 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Restore

Given my previously-declared COI, I note here that I have restored the article to its pre-November 2023 state, due to a lack of balance. Although I do some consultancy for HA, they did not ask me to make this edit, nor did I discuss it with them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV and Verifiability concerns

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

[Note my previously-declared CoI]

It has been drawn to my attention that two consecutive, and contentious, statements in this article are wholly uncited:

In 2003, the FBI said Human Appeal had a "close relationship" with Hamas. The US state department, in leaked cables from 2003, also associated Human Appeal with Hamas and said that "members of its field offices in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya had connections to al-Qaeda associates".

Can they be removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The source ([1]) later in the paragraph verifies it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tense relating to historic reporting

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Human Appeal. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
The requested edits backlog is low. There are currently 81 requests waiting for review.

Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

[Note my previously-declared CoI]

Further to changes recently made in response to this NPOVN discussion, please change:

a UAE-based organisation which is related to the British Human Appeal according to the Telegraph has had ties with extremists.

to read "...which according to a 2010 article in The Telegraph was historically related to the British Human Appeal, had ties with extremists."

Also please remove the related paragraph from the lede, as it is WP:UNDUE, per that discussion.

There is no sourcing which supports the use of current tense in these disputed matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for "historically related", a wording which is generally used when something is no longer the case? Also, the 2015 article makes it clear that the relationship wasn't over by that time. Alaexis_¿question? 16:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date. It is no longer the case. the 2015 article is not current, but even then was historic; referring only to alleged events involving HA in 2003, and 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the tense as you've requested. I'm not sure about adding "historical" which would imply that this is no longer the case, unless there are RS using this word or saying that there is no relationship now. Alaexis_¿question? 12:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but the paragraph in question still says "is related" in present tense; and one-third of the lede still refers to this allegation, in the present tense, and contrary to WP:UNDUE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence against allegations of extremist ties

The following are recently published retractions by organisations who have repeated the allegations:

Precisazione (Google translation)
Retraction and Explanation Regarding Middle East Humanitarian Aid Organization (refers to Human Appeal USA; a subsidiary part of Human Appeal UK)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section on alleged extremist ties should also make clear that allegations claiming Human Appeal has links to proscribed groups have never officially been issued by the UK or US Government. Hence Human Appeal operates legally in both the UK and USA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the retracted article weren't used here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Gateway Pundit retraction deals with HAUS and says that there is "a sham charity, Human Appeal International, which has ties to Hamas and was funding terrorism" with the Telegraph article linked. This seems to contradict your claim that Human Appeal USA is a subsidiary of Human Appeal UK. Alaexis_¿question? 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere do I claim that the retracted articles are used here. However the retractions are themselves evidence that the claims that are made more widely are false.

The Gateway Pundit retraction does not "contradict your claim that Human Appeal USA is a subsidiary of Human Appeal UK", and it is not possible to logically draw that conclusion from it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Gateway Pundit is a deprecated source (see WP:RSP) so it can't be used for anything.

The retraction notice in L'Incontro doesn't say which facts were found to be untrue, so it cannot be used to disprove anything currently in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for not using TGP as a source ("given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact") are not relevant to this issue; in any case I'm not suggesting that either be cited in the article. I repeat: the retractions are themselves evidence that the claims that are made more widely are false. Perhaps other editors might opine? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]