Talk:Human Appeal

Dallas office; Myanmar

Can we add something to the effect:

The charity has a US office, in Dallas, Texas. In April 2025, the George W. Bush Institute noted its involvement in relief efforts following the Myanmar earthquake.

References

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Question: Where do you see this added? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"Offices" or "Projects", or maybe split between the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Partly done! Added the US office but would like to see more secondary sourcing for the Bush institute piece Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Thank you for the former, but I am not clear why you require "more secondary sourcing" for a statement about what a reputable, notable, and independent third party says about the subject of his article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Which guidelines, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources Likeanechointheforest (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Thank you. While it includes some caveats, I note that that says (italics mine):

Primary sources ... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations ... specific facts may be taken from primary sources... Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

Since this is a specific fact, and not a large block of material, it does not seem to preclude the requested change.

Further, WP:PRIMARY says:

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ... with care ... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Again, this is a "straightforward, descriptive statements of fact". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to other editors here! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see HA's efforts in Myanmar have been covered by multiple media outlets, so we can use them and not rely on primary sources. Examples . [[User:|Alaexis]]_¿question? 15:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis: This is true, and I'd be happy to see them used as well, but the point of this request is that the George W. Bush Institute noted HA's work. That such a body did so is further evidence of HA's good standing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Pigsonthewing: I added the relief efforts with an independent source. Adding something pointing out the George Bush listing of relief agencies is WP:UNDUE. It's just a quick list of group s providing aid, and not necessarily notable in itself. If the group writing the list was itself written about, then that would be a different story. STEMinfo (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Telegraph retraction

A cited newspaper article (numbered 42 at the time of writing):

Government donation to Muslim Charities Forum denounced as "madness", Camilla Turner, Telegraph, 23 September 2014

was corrected by the Telegraph on 3 October 2014, when they wrote:

Corrections and clarifications

Muslim Charities Forum

Owing to an editing error [SIC], an item on Sept 23 said that the Muslim Charities Forum, a coalition of Muslim charities, was an "extremist group". The Forum has asked us to make clear that it is not extremist and abides by the principles of democracy and interfaith tolerance. We are happy to do so.

Noting my previously declared COI, and that Human Appeal is and was then a member of MCF, please either note this correction (preferred), or remove the citation and the claim it cites.

For background, the World Association for Christian Communication wrote about this exact case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

where did the Telegraph correct themselves? if you could provide a source, it would make things a lot easier on my end. Waning Star (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Waning Star I quote the source above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

which source? the Telegraph article doesn't seem to mention it and the WACC source is a dead link. Waning Star (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Waning Star

"...corrected by the Telegraph 3 October 2014 when they wrote

Corrections and clarifications

Muslim Charities Forum...".

The WACC piece, which was live when I wrote this request, is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20250523060909/https://waccglobal.org/how-do-the-media-fuel-islamophobia/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

i read through the Telegraph article again and i still don't see the "corrections and clarifications" thing. is it a paywalled thing? Waning Star (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Which article are you reading? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any corrections in the Telegraph article . It still says the same thing about the Union of Good. Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have not claimed that there are corrections in the original Telegraph article. They issued a separate correction, in the edition I both cited and quoted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but you shared a link to an unrelated website. If The Telegraph published a retraction/correction please provide a link to The Telegraph itself. Alaexis_¿question? 19:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a newspaper. They published the retraction I quoted, in print, in the edition I cited.

The link I shared is not unrelated, but is, as I said, "background ... about this exact case". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that this is the case, we don't say in this article that Muslim Charities Forum is/was an extremist group. What exactly would you like to change? Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote in my OP: "please either note this correction (preferred), or remove the citation and the claim it cites". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Encoded, thanks for the confirmation.

@Pigsonthewing, you've ignored what I wrote "Assuming that this is the case, we don't say in this article that Muslim Charities Forum is/was an extremist group." We use this source for the following statement

“ The Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation said Human Appeal, along with other British Muslim charities, was an early participant in the Union of Good ”

This is an almost verbatim quote from the article. The correction that they published doesn't mean that the whole article is retracted. Neither Human Appeal not Union of Good are mentioned in the correction, so it's irrelevant. Alaexis_¿question? 12:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm the correction in the telegraph: PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions it's in section "2 News" Encoded  Talk 💬 11:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Whilst that quote in the article is retracted. The source is used to verify another claim that was not retracted. If there's an alternative source that covers the same claims that can be used but for now this is a good source for that specific claim. Encoded  Talk 💬 12:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Award for film

Please add:

The charity made a feature-length documentary film, ''Pot of Gold'', in partnership with Chief Productions, about its work with beekeepers in [[Kashmir]], Pakistan.<ref>{{cite news |title=UK Indie Chief Productions Sets New Doc; Glasgow Unveils Festival Lineup; Ben Stephenson’s Poison Pen Announces New London Hires — Global Briefs |first=Zac |last=Ntim |date=25 January 2023|url=https://deadline.com/2023/01/uk-indie-chief-productions-sets-new-doc-global-briefs-1235240399/ |access-date=26 September 2025 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title='Pot of Gold' wins big at Manchester Film Festival |first=Grace |last=Tucker |date=26 March 2025 |url=https://www.manchesterworld.uk/your-world/pot-of-gold-wins-big-at-manchester-film-festival-5051731 |access-date=26 September 2025}}</ref> The film was awarded "Best Documentary Feature" at the 10th [[Manchester Film Festival]] in March 2025.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/manchester-film-festival-announces-award-winners/ |Manchester Film Festival announces award winners |first=Tom |last=Williams |access-date=26 September 2025}}</ref>

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 12:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing concerns about verifiability and neutrality of article content

My contacts at Human Appeal (COI declared here previously) still have concerns about the veracity of the claims made in this article. They say:

Based on Wikipedia's policies on verifiability (WP:V), reliable sourcing (WP:RS), neutrality (WP:NPOV), due weight (WP:UNDUE), and attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), we want to ask editors to verify whether each cited source in the Telegraph piece cited actually supports the claims for which it is used, and to address the following points:

1. Request that editors determine whether the Telegraph article by Andrew Gilligan is an opinion or commentary piece rather than a news report and, if so, whether factual assertions derived from it should be attributed to the author and given appropriate weight under Wikipedia's sourcing policies. The submission should also ask whether, if the article is retained, editors should consider including other reliable secondary sources discussing responses or rebuttals to the allegations in order to satisfy neutrality and due weight. Surely only an opinion piece would include this sentence by the author Gilligan " I still love Peter – but he’s making himself look very silly indeed over all this stuff". Also, if they insist to keep this piece by Gilligan can it be balanced with the rebuttal made by another news organization MEE
2. Request that editors verify whether the external links cited within the Telegraph piece actually support the claims attributed to them. Examples include links to a generic U.S. Treasury page and archived webpages that should be checked to determine whether they relate to the organisations identified in the article
3. Request that editors examine whether the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables cited by the Telegraph article refer to the UK charity Human Appeal or to a different organisation with a similar English-language name headquartered in the United Arab Emirates. Editors should determine whether those documents verify the claims made in the Wikipedia article before relying upon them. A web archive page that is claimed to be that of the an NGO called 101 Days but is in fact an archived page of another NGO called InterPal as can been seen in the URL header on the archive
4. Request that editors verify whether the citation relating to alleged links with extremist speakers remains accessible and whether it continues to support the statement for which it is cited, given that the referenced URL appears no longer to function. Gilligan's Telegraph piece also claims to prove Human Appeal UK is linked to extremist preachers using a dead URL link that shows nothing
5. Request that editors confirm whether the citation used to support claims concerning CIA/FBI documents actually contains information about Human Appeal UK and supports the statement made in the Wikipedia article. The Telegraph pieces links to WikiLeaks pages that it is claimed prove the US government suspected the UK charity Human Appeal was linked to terrorist groups, yet the two links in the Telegraph claiming to show evidence against Human Appeal UK are in fact Wikileaks pages with purported leaked US cables that exclusively talk about a UAE charity headquartered in the Emirate of Ajman with a similar name in English (Human Appeal International) and no accusations or evidence of wrong doing about the independent Manchester headquartered UK charity Human Appeal contained within these “leaked cables” who authenticity has never been verified in the first place ( and ). It is a fact that the US Treasury has never designated Human Appeal UK of being a terrorist supporter nor has it made any sanctions against Human Appeal UK for having links to any proscribed group.
6. Request that editors consider whether reliable secondary sources discussing subsequent reviews, investigations, or scholarly analyses relating to allegations against Muslim charities should be included where they satisfy Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines and improve neutrality and due weight.
   As an example for editorial review, editors should evaluate the George Mason University Schar School white paper by Dr. Gerald FitzGerald, Mapping Anti-Muslim Discrimination and Information Manipulation, and Its Impact on Humanitarian Aid and Development (January 2024), which discusses historical campaigns alleging links between Muslim charities and terrorism and examines the role of information manipulation directed at humanitarian organisations. The paper also discusses historical reporting concerning FBI dossiers, including references to Associated Press reporting from 1997 on fake FBI dossiers being circulated to smear Muslim NGOs, and may be relevant contextual material if editors determine that it satisfies Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards.
   Editors may also wish to consider whether subsequent independent discussion of this research is relevant when assessing due weight. For example, the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) summarised a public policy discussion featuring Dr. FitzGerald's research and its implications for allegations directed at Muslim humanitarian organisations and noted concerns about how such narratives can influence public perception and online information, including Wikipedia.
   In addition, the NGO source webinar, "Anti-Muslim Information Manipulation and Its Impact on Humanitarian Aid," brought together academics and nonprofit practitioners to discuss the same body of research and its implications for humanitarian organisations. Editors may wish to determine whether this event, or any published materials arising from it, provide additional context supported by reliable secondary sourcing.
7. Request that editors review the section discussing the 2008 Israeli designation of charities allegedly associated with the Union of Good to verify that all cited sources support the claims made. Editors should also consider whether reliable independent or official sources discussing subsequent investigations or findings by UK authorities, including the relevant Hansard parliamentary record where appropriate, are relevant and should be included to provide appropriate context in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality policies. The 2008 Israeli “ban” of 37 charities based on the allegation they were all members of the Union of Good association is also not supported and offers links that have no merit or are dead

We would like to request that Wikipedia reviews every Telegraph citation in the section for compliance with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality, attribution, and due weight, and remove, replace, qualify, or supplement citations where the supporting evidence does not clearly verify the corresponding statement.

The purpose of the request is not to remove well-sourced negative information, but to ensure that all material about Human Appeal complies fully with Wikipedia's core content policies and is supported by sources that directly verify the claims made.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)