Talk:Global Relief Foundation

Global Relief Foundation
I saw you created Global Relief Foundation. I changed the way it references your source. Is the Foundation's ties to terrorism really established, in a court of law, for instance?

The Treasury Department answers to the Attorney General I believe. And the Attorney General in 2002 was John Ashcroft. Ashcroft was not an honest official. He distorted various other terror cases. He claimed, for instance, that his Department helped thwart a plot to blow up Federal buildings in Ottawa. That plot turned out to be a complete fabrication on the part of intelligence officials.

The idea of "six degrees of separation" should be required reading for all US counter-terrorism intelligence officials. -- Geo Swan 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Geo, to be honest, I don't know how the case shook out or if charges were ever pressed. A small point: I don't think Treasury answers to Justice and even if they did, we can't really say "Oh, Ashcroft is horrible, everything he does is suspect," even if it's true (and believe me, I am no fan of the guy). An even smaller point: I really don't like ref tags. I noticed you put them on the Hawash article, and here. You might check out policy on those tags. IronDuke  14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

pov...
Another contributor recently addedd a pov tag to this article. But, although the instantiation of that tag tells readers to look to the article's talk page for a more detailed explanation, the person who placed the tag didn't offer one.

They didn't even state whether they thought the article was biased in favor of the US government, and against Global Relief Foundation -- or vice versa.

I am going to ask them to leave an explanation for their concern here. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason is that, although the article is short, 90% of the article is about the treasury departments freezing of it's assets. To balance the article we really need more about the org itself and it's history etc and the 'counter opinion'.--neon white talk 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some more countering of the allegations. --neon white talk 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I disagree that an article lapses from compliance with WP:NPOV if it neutrally covers all of the WP:RS. If the "other side" of the story is covered in less detail, because of a lack of WP:RS, this is not a lapse from WP:NPOV.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really covered at all despite it being reported, regardless an article still needs to maintain a neutral bias. I think the issue is resolved for now. It's possible that further info may become available, i believe the case remains essentially open. --neon white talk 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)